<*J 


THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 


-I* 


*£ 


RON  CIRCULATING 

CHECK  FOR  UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING  COPY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  NO.  158 


RELATIVE  ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND 

NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  THE  VARIOUS 

CUTS  OF  BEEF 


BY  L,.  D.  HALyL,  AND  A.  D.  EMMETT 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  JULY,  1912 


SUMMARY  OF  BULLETIN  No.    158 

1.  INTRODUCTION. — A   knowledge   of   the   market   products    into   which   beef 
cattle  are  converted  is  essential  both  to  the  producer  and  to  the  consumer  of 
beef.     Owing  to  the  increasing  cost  of  meats,  there  is  a  growing  demand  for 
accurate  information  on  the  subject.  Pages  135  to  130 

2.  OBJECTS. — To    determine    (1)    relative   proportions    of    lean,    visible    fat, 
and  bone  in  each  of  the  retail  and  wholesale  cuts  of  beef;    (2)   chemical  com- 
position and  nutritive  value  of  edible  meat  in  each  wholesale  cut;    and  (3)  net 
cost  of  the  lean,  the  total  edible  meat,  and  the  nutrients  in  each  cut  at  current 
market  prices.  Page  137 

3.  ANIMALS  USED. — No.   1 :     Choice  grade  Hereford  steer,  age  18  months, 
live  weight  902  pounds.     No.  2 :     Choice  grade  Aberdeen'-Angus  steer,  age  24 
months,   live   weight   1190   pounds.     No.   3:     Prime   pure-bred    Shorthorn   steer, 
age  29  months,  live  weight  1,360  pounds.  Pages  137  to  139 

4.  SLAUGHTER    TESTS. — Weights    of    dressed    beef,    hides,    fats,    and    of   the 
various   organs   and   other   parts    comprising  the   offal   were    recorded    and    re- 
duced to  percentage  of  live  weight.  Pages  139  to  141 

5.  WHOLESALE  CUTS. — The  right  half  of  each  carcass  was  divided  into  the 
"straight"   wholesale   cuts,   viz.,   loin,   rib,  round,   chuck,  plate,   flank,   and    fore 
shank ;    also  four  minor  wholesale  cuts,  the  rump,  hind  shank,  shoulder  clod, 
and  neck.     Each  cut  was  weighed  and  the  percentage  of  carcass  weight  calcu- 
lated. Pages  142  to  144 

The  amounts  and  proportions  of  lean,  fat,  and  bone  in  each  wholesale  cut 
were  determined,  and  the  relative  economy  of  the  cuts  at  wholesale  market 
prices  was  computed.  Pages  144  to  147 

6.  CHEMICAL   COMPOSITION   AND   NUTRITIVE  VALUE. — The  boneless   meat  of 
each  wholesale  cut  was  analyzed  to   determine  the  proportions  of  water,  pro- 
tein,  fat   (ether  extract),  organic  extractives,   mineral  matter,  and  phosphorus. 

Pages  148  to  Io9 

From  the  chemical  composition  and  the  calculated  fuel  value  of  the  bone- 
less meat,  the  relative  nutritive  economy  of  the  wholesale  cuts  at  market  prices 
was  determined.  Pages  159  to  163 

7.  RETAIL   CUTS. — Each    wholesale    cut    was    divided    into   its    proper    retail 
cuts.     After  weighing,  photographing,  and  trimming  such  cuts  as  are  ordinarily 
trimmed  of  surplus  fat  and  bone,  each  retail  cut  was  separated  into  lean,  vis- 
ible fat,  and  bone,  and  each  portion  weighed.  Pages  163  to  170 

Relative  economy  of  the  various  cuts  was  computed  in  terms  of  the  cost 
per  pound  of  lean  and  of  total  meat  in  each  cut  at  retail  market  prices. 

Pages  170  to  173 

8.  CONCLUSIONS.  Pages  173  to  177 

9.  PHOTOGRAPHS  OF  THE  RETAIL  CUTS.  Pages  177  to  200 

10.  APPENDIX. — Tabulated  results  of  cutting  and  trimming  the  wholesal? 
and  retail  cuts,  and  of  the  chemical  analyses  of  the  wholesale  cuts  from  the 
three  half  carcasses.  Pages  200  to  233 


BY  Iy.  D.  HAL,!,,  ASSISTANT  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAI,  HUSBANDRY,  AND 
A.  D.  EMMETT,  ASSISTANT  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAL  NUTRITION 

INTRODUCTION 

Precise  knowledge  of  the  final  market  products  into  which 
beef  cattle  are  converted  is  essential  both  to  the  producer  and  to 
the  consumer  of  beef.  In  order  to  place  beef  production  upon  the 
most  exact  and  profitable  basis,  account  must  be  taken  not  only  of 
economical  methods  of  breeding  and  feeding,  but  also  of  the  qual- 
ity of  the  finished  beef  product  as  delivered  to  the  ultimate  con- 
sumer. The  relative  efficiency  of  different  types  of  beef  cattle  or 
of  systems  of  production  cannot  be  accurately  compared  without 
considering  the  adaptability  of  the  beef  to  the  purpose  for  which 
it  is  used.  The  same  considerations  that  prompt  manufacturers 
of  other  food  articles  to  study  closely  the  commodities  they  place 
on  the  market  should  prompt  the  meat  producer  to  inform  himself 
as  thoroly  as  possible  regarding  his  finished  product.  Notwith- 
standing the  evident  truth  of  these  propositions,  no  comprehensive 
studies  have  yet  been  conducted  and  published  which  furnish  a 
basis  on  which  to  compare  live  cattle  with  the  various  cuts  of  beef 
derived  from  their  carcasses.  Consequently,  beef  producers  have 
continued  to  conduct  their  operations  almost  wholly  without  re- 
gard to  this  important  phase  of  the  industry. 

Meat-market  patrons  are  more  directly,  altho  no  more  vitally 
concerned  with  this  subject  than  beef  producers,  since  they  deal 


'The  investigations  herein  reported  relative  to  the  retail  cuts  of  beef  were 
suggested  by  Herbert  W.  Mumford,  Chief  in  Animal  Husbandry,  and  those  re- 
lating to  chemical  composition  and  nutritive  value  of  the  wholesale  cuts,  by 
H.  S.  Grindley,  Chief  in  Animal  Chemistry.  The  work  was  planned  jointly  un- 
der their  general  supervision,  together  with  their  associates,  L.  D.  Hall  and 
A.  D.  Emmett.  Messrs.  Grindley  and  Emmett  were  entirely  responsible  for  the 
chemical  analysis  of  the  wholesale  cuts,  and  rendered  material  assistance  in 
connection  with  the  slaughter  tests,  physical  determinations,  and  in  the  com- 
pilation of  the  data  on  the  retail  cuts. 

135 


136  BULLETIN    No.   158  [July, 

directly  with  the  market  and  have  occasion  almost  daily  to  make 
use  of  information  concerning-  the  relative  values  of  the  different 
retail  cuts.  Those  who  would  buy  meat  most  intelligently  must 
know  the  nature  of  these  cuts,  especially  with  reference  to  the  pro- 
portions of  lean  meat,  fat,  and  bone  which  they  contain  and  the 
food  value  of  meat  from  different  parts  of  the  carcass.  A  large 
majority  of  meat  consumers  have  no  knowledge  whatever  of 
these  matters,  but  make  their  selections  of  meat  solely  according 
to  habit  or  fancy.  In  fact,  but  little  accurate  data  along  this  line 
have  hitherto  been  available  to  those  who  wished  to  buy  meats  on 
a  rational  basis.  As  a  result,  a  few  well-known  cuts  are  greatly  in 
demand,  and  the  remainder  of  the  carcass  is  a  "drug  on  the 
market."  To  such  an  extreme  has  this  condition  developed  that 
a  portion  of  the  carcass  (loins  and  ribs),  forming  only  about  one- 
fourth  of  its  weight,  represents  nearly  one-half  of  its  retail  cost. 
In  view  of  the  large  place  which  meat  occupies  in  the  American 
diet,  amounting  to  nearly  one-third  of  the  average  expenditure  for 
all  food,  the  importance  of  an  intelligent  understanding  of  the 
subject  on  the  part  of  the  consumer  is  readily  apparent. 

Not  only  are  the  foregoing  statements  true  of  meat  producers 
and  consumers  as  individuals,  but  it  is  highlv  essential  to  the  entire 
beef-cattle  industry,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  economic  welfare 
of  the  beef-eating  public,  on  the  other,  that  a  more  intelligent 
understanding  of  the  different  cuts  of  meat  be  acquired  by  con- 
sumers generally.  An  increased  demand  for  those  portions  of 
the  carcass  which  are  now  difficult  for  the  butcher  to  dispose  of 
would  contribute  largely  toward  a  more  stable  condition  of  the 
trade  and  thus  enable  the  producer  to  operate  with  greater  confi- 
dence and  economy.  At  the  same  time  it  would  effect  a  tremend- 
ous saving  to  the  consumer  himself  by  more  nearly  equalizing  the 
market  values  of  the  various  cuts  and  by  enabling  the  retailer  to 
operate  with  a  smaller  margin  of  profit.  A  thoro  awakening  of 
our  own  people  in  this  matter  is  no  less  essential  to  the  future  of 
beef  production  in  this  country  than  the  development  of  our  for- 
eign markets,  on  the  one  hand,  or  a  more  efficient  system  of  cattle 
raising,  on  the  other.  Thus  producer  and  consumer  are  in  a 
large  sense  inter-dependent  with  respect  to  the  whole  question, 
and  the  dissemination  of  useful  information  along  this  line  is 
clearly  to  their  mutual  advantage.  Further,  cattle  raisers  them- 
selves constitute  an  important  proportion  of  the  beef-consuming 
class;  hence  they  have  a  two-fold  interest  in  the  matter.  The 
increasing  cost  of  meats,  in  keeping  with  prices  of  other  foods, 
has  stimulated  popular  interest  in  the  whole  subject,  and  there  is 
a  growing  demand  for  accurate  information  bearing  upon  it. 


7O/.?]         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  137 

OBJECTS  AND  PLAN  OF  INVESTIGATION 

The  principal  objects  of  the  investigation  reported  in  this  bul- 
letin were  to  determine  (i)  the  relative  proportions  of  lean,  visible 
fat,  and  bone  in  each  of  the  retail  and  wholesale  cuts  of  beef ;  (2) 
the  chemical  composition  and  nutritive  value  of  the  boneless  meat 
(all  lean  and  fat)  of  the  various  wholesale  cuts;  and  (3)  the  net 
cost  to  the  consumer  of  the  lean,  the  gross  meat,  and  the  food 
nutrients  in  each  cut  at  current  market  prices.  Incidentally,  data 
were  obtained  relative  to  the  amounts  and  proportions  of  the  vari- 
ous internal  organs  and  other  by-products  of  slaughter  yielded  by 
cattle. 

Steers  from  the  University  herd  were  slaughtered  at  a  local 
abattoir,  the  weights  of  hides,  fats,  various  internal  organs,  and 
other  by-products  being  recorded,  as  well  as  those  of  the  different 
live  animals  and  their  dressed  carcasses.  After  proper  refrigeration 
in  a  cold  storage  room  at  the  abattoir,  the  right  half  of  each  car- 
cass was  brought  to  the  laboratory  and  divided  into  wholesale 
cuts ;  and  these  in  turn  were  cut  up  as  in  retail  markets.  Some  of 
the  retail  cuts  wrere  trimmed  free  of  surplus  fat  and  bone  in  accord- 
ance with  meat-market  custom,  and  the  lean,  fat,  and  bone  of 
each  cut  were  then  separated  as  carefully  and  completely  as  could 
be  done  by  the  use  of  boning  knives.  A  composite  sample  of  all 
the  boneless  meat  derived  from  each  wholesale  cut  was  taken  for 
chemical  analysis.  Each  step  in  the  slaughtering,  cutting,  and 
sampling  was  performed  rapidly  in  order  to  minimize  loss  by 
evaporation,  and  careful  precautions  were  observed  to  make  the 
records  exact  and  complete. 

ANIMALS  USED 

These  tests  were  made  upon  the  carcasses  of  three  steers :  a 
choice  grade  Hereford,  a  choice  grade  Aberdeen- Angus,  and  a 
prime  pure-bred  Shorthorn. 

Steer  No.  i,  the  grade  Hereford,  was  one  of  a  carload  of 
choice  calves  from  the  Panhandle  of  Texas,  purchased  by  the 
University  in  December,  1904,  at  the  International  Live  Stock 
Exposition  in  Chicago.  They  were  spring  calves  (April  and 
May,  1904)  and  ran  with  their  dams  on  grass  without  grain  until 
November,  1904,  when  they  were  shipped  to  Chicago.  About 
December  10  they  were  shipped  to  the  University,  where  they  were 
gradually  placed  on  a  fattening  ration  consisting  of  crushed  ear 
corn,  cottonseed  meal,  clover,  and  alfalfa  hay,  with  a  small  amount 
of  corn  stover,  and  continued  on  full  grain  feed  until  marketed  in 
November  (1905).  Pure  corn  meal  was  used  during  a  part  of  the 
feeding  period  instead  of  crushed  ear  corn,  and  linseed  meal  was 


138 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July, 


used  instead  of  cottonseed  meal  part  of  the  time.  This  steer  was 
about  eighteen  months  old  when  slaughtered  November  14,  1905. 
It  was  a  choice  yearling  in  prime  condition  but  not  fancy  in  quality 
nor  form,  and  would  have  sold  at  twenty-five  to  fifty  cents  per 
hundred  weight  below  the  top  of  the  beef-cattle  market.  Thru 
an  oversight  Steer  No.  i  was  not  photographed. 

Steer  No.  2,  a  grade  Aberdeen- Angus,  was  bought  as  a  calf 
in  the  fall  of  1904  and  was  used  as  a  specimen  steer  for  the  class 
in  stock  judging.  It  was  fed  a  ration  of  three  parts  corn,  one 
part  oats,  one  part  bran,  and  one  part  oil  meal  together  with  clover 
hay,  and  was  on  pasture  about  five  months  in  the  summer  of  1905. 
When  slaughtered  (March  20,  1906,  age  24  months)  it  was  a 
choice  beef  steer,  sufficiently  fat  but  not  quite  good  enough  in 
quality  nor  form  to  grade  prime.  See  Fig.  i. 


FIG.  l.    CHOICE  ABERDEEN-ANGUS  GRADE  STEER. 

Steer  No.  3,  the  Shorthorn  (Fig.  2),  was  bred  and  raised  at  the 
University.  It  was  calved  in  May,  1904;  ran  on  pasture  and  was 
fed  milk  at  the  pail  during  the  first  summer ;  received  a  light  ration 
of  three  parts  corn,  three  parts  oats,  three  parts  bran,  and  one  part 
oil  meal  during  the  winter;  ran  on  pasture  during  the  summer  of 
1905 ;  and  was  changed  to  a  ration  of  three  parts  corn,  one  part 
oats,  one  part  bran,  and  one  part  oil  meal  during  the  following 
winter,  which  ration,  together  with  clover  hay  in  the  winter  and 


I9I-]        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


139 


pasture  in  the  summer,  it  was  fed  until  slaughtered  October  22, 
1906,  at  29  months.  At  the  time  of  slaughtering,  this  steer  graded 
strictly  prime,  somewhat  over-ripe  in  condition,  but  fancy  in  qual- 
ity and  form,  being  the  best  of  the  three  steers  in  these  respects. 
The  carcass  was  cut  up  October  25,  1906.  All  the  photographs  of 
retail  cuts  reproduced  in  this  bulletin  (Figs.  13  to  69)  were  made 
from  this  carcass. 


FIG.  2.    PRIMS  PURE-BRED  SHORTHORN  STEER. 

The  reader  is  cautioned  against  regarding  this  experiment  as 
a  comparison  of  the  three  breeds  of  cattle  involved.  The  differences 
observed  in  the  carcasses  and  in  the  cuts  of  beef  must  be  attributed 
chiefly  to  differences  in  age,  condition  (fatness)  and  individuality 
of  the  animals.  It  also  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  results  of 
this  investigation  are  not  in  all  respects  applicable  to  the  medium 
and  lower  grades  of  beef. 

SLAUGHTER  TESTS 

The  cattle  were  fasted  twenty-four  hours  before  slaughtering, 
but  were  given  water.  The  live  weight  was  taken  at  the  abattoir 
immediately  before  slaughtering.  Table  i  shows  the  weights 
recorded  in  connection  with  the  slaughter  test  and  the  percentage 
of  carcass  and  of  by-products  based  on  the  live  weight. 

Comparatively  little  shrinkage  occurred  in  cooling  the  car- 
casses, owing  to  insufficient  ventilation  and  a  high  degree  of  mois- 


140 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


TABLE  i. — RESULTS  OF  SLAUGHTER  TESTS 


Steer 
No.  1, 
•pounds 

Steer 
No.  2, 
pounds 

Steer 
No.  3, 

pounds 

Steer 
No.  1, 
percent 

Steer 
No.  2, 
percent 

Steer 
No.  3, 
percent 

Live  weight   

902.0 

'  1190.0 

1360.0 

549.0 

739.0 

870.0 

60.86 

62.10 

63.97 

Dressed  beef    cold        .... 

544.5 

724.5 

870  O1 

60.36 

60.88 

63.97 

4.5 

14.5 

0 

.50 

1.22 

0 

Ri'j'ht  half  cascass  

274.3 

357.5 

430.0 

30.41 

30.04 

31.62 

Left  half  carcass  

270.2 

367.0 

440.0 

29.96 

30.84 

32.35 

Hide       

67.5 

77.5 

87.5 

7.48 

6.51 

6.43 

Fats 
Total    

46.5 

71.0 

64.1 

5.15 

5.97 

4.71 

Caul    

16.0 

29.4 

24.5 

1.77 

2.47 

1.80 

Intestinal     

22.5 

31.4 

23.5 

2.49 

2.64 

1.73 

Pluck    

8.0 

10.2 

16.1 

.89 

.86 

1.18 

Tongue    

5.1 

3.8 

6.2 

.57 

.32 

.46 

Heart    

3.9 

4.4 

5.5 

43 

.37 

.40 

13.0 

13.6 

14.0 

1.44 

1.14 

1.03 

Sweet  breads         

.6 

1.0 

.9 

.07 

.08 

.07 

Lungs    

5.8 

5.5 

7.0 

.64 

.46 

.51 

Trachea    (windpipe)  

2.5 

3.0 

1.7 

.28 

.25 

.12 

Penis   

.5 

1.0 

.8 

.06 

.08 

.06 

Tail  

1.6 

1.6 

1.6 

.18 

.13 

.12 

Stomachs 
Total,  with  contents  .  . 
Rumen  and  reticulum, 
empty        

86.8 
1       18.3 

119.5 
18.0 

134.0, 
22.5 

9.62 
2.03 

10.04 

1.51 

9.85 
1.65 

Rumen  and  reticulum 
with  contents    

66.3 

98.0 

102.5 

7.35 

8.23 

7.53 

Omasum  and  contents 
Abomasum,    empty  .... 
Abomasum  and  con- 
tents 

10.5 
10.0 

16.0 
4.5 

5  5 

20.0 
10.3 

11  5 

1.1(5 
1.11 

1.35 
.38 

46 

1.47 
.76 

.85 

Intestines    

33.0 

33.4 

43.0 

3.66 

2.81 

3.16 

Spleen    

4.0 

1.6 

1.9 

.44 

.13 

.14 

Gall  bladder  and  contents 

1.0 

1.7 

.08 

.12 

Head 
Total   

21.5 

27.5 

30.0 

2.38 

2.31 

2.21 

Bone  

12.0 

15.0 

22.5 

1.33 

1.26 

1.65 

Trimmings    

9.5 

12.5 

7.5 

1  .  05 

1.05 

.55 

Fore  feet 
Total    

7.3 

7.5 

9.2 

.81 

.63 

.68 

Bone    

6.0 

6.0 

8.0 

.67 

.50 

.59 

Trimmings    

1.3 

1.5 

1.2 

.14 

.13 

.     .09 

Hind  feet 
Total    

7.0 

7.5 

9.5 

.78 

.63 

.70 

Bone  

5.5 

6.0 

7.5 

.61 

.50 

.55 

Trimmings    

1.5 

1.5 

2.0 

.17 

.13 

.15 

Blood    

29.0 

35.2 

43  5 

3.22 

2.96 

3.20 

Loss  in   dressing  

17  4 

32.8 

27  65 

1.93 

2.76 

2.03 

*No  shrinkage,  due  to  humidity  of  the  cooler  and  fat  condition  of  carcass. 


1912]        ECONOMV,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  141 

ture  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  chillroom,  which  retarded  radiation 
of  moisture  from  the  beef.  Carcasses  Nos.  I  and  2  remained  in 
cold  storage  44  hours  after  dressing  and  No.  3,  68  hours  at 
a  temperature  of  38°  to  40°  F.  Notwithstanding  the  longer  period 
of  chilling,  carcass  No.  3,  being  extremely  fat,  showed  no  shrink- 
age ;  and  the  others  sustained  much  less  loss  than  commonly  occurs 
under  normal  packing-house  conditions. 

Referring  to  the  percentage  of  dressed  beef  (cold  basis),  it  is 
found  that  Steer  No.  3  gave  the  highest  yield  and  Steer  No.  I  the 
lowest.  Had  the  relative  weight  of  undigested  food  in  the  stomach 
at  the  time  of  slaughter  been  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  Steer  No. 
i,  the  dressed  yield  of  Steer  No.  2  would  have  been  61.80  per- 
cent and  that  of  No.  3,  64.40  percent,  thus  comparing  even  more 
favorably  with  Steer  No.  i  than  is  indicated  by  the  yields  based  on 
actual  live  weight,  as  in  Table  i.  The  variations  in  yield  were 
due,  chiefly,  to  the  fatter  condition  of  Steer  No.  3  and  the  thinner 
condition  of  No.  i,  but  they  were  influenced  to  some  extent  by 
differences  in  conformation  and  quality  of  the  cattle. 

The  smallest  relative  weight  of  internal  fat  was  yielded  by 
Steer  No.  3,  and  the  highest  by  Steer  No.  2.  Considering  the  high 
condition  of  Steer  No.  3  and  the  large  percentage  of  dressed  beef 
netted  by  this  animal,  the  small  proportion  of  internal  fat  is  sig- 
nificant, indicating  a  high  degree  of  efficiency  for  beef  production. 

Relative  weights  of  the  various  organs  and  parts  of  the  three 
animals  are  scarcely  comparable,  being  influenced  to  an  unknown 
extent  by  the  differing  degrees  of  condition  and  "fill"  already 
mentioned.  It  will  be  noticed,  however,  that  the  body  of  Steer 
No.  i  contained  the  largest  relative  weight  of  organs  and  parts 
'that  constitute  the  offal,1  due  in  part  to  lower  condition  and  con- 
sequently smaller  percentage  of  carcass  to  live  weight,  and  doubt- 
less, also,  to  a  natural  tendency  to  coarseness  of  bone,  skin,  and 
general  quality.  Steer  Xo.  2,  on  the  other  hand,  altho  lower  in 
condition  and  therefore  in  carcass  yield  than  No.  3,  yielded  a 
smaller  percentage  of  bone  than  the  latter,  as  shown  by  figures 
for  the  head  and  feet,  also  a  smaller  proportion  of  various  internal 
organs  such  as  the  paunch  and  intestines,  and  a  similar  percentage 
of  hide;  thus  indicating  that  the  highest  degree  of  general  quality, 
as  between  the  three  steers,  was  possessed  by  No.  2. 

'By-products  other  than  the  hide  and  fats. 


142 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July.. 


WHOLESALE  CUTS 

After  chilling,  the  right  half  of  each  carcass  was  taken  to  the 
laboratory  for  cutting  and  sampling.  Altho  cut  up  on  different 
dates,  the  cutting  in  each  instance  was  done  by  the  same  man,  an 
expert  from  the  packing-house  market  of  Swift  and  Company, 
Chicago,  and  identical  methods  of  procedure  were  observed  as 
nearly  as  possible  with  the  three  carcasses. 

The  accompanying  diagram  (Fig.  3)  illustrates  the  wholesale 
cuts  that  were  made.  In  addition  to  the  seven  "straight"  cuts, 
four  secondary  wholesale  cuts  were  made;  viz.,  the  hind  shank, 
rump,  clod,  and  neck.  In  the  section  on  retail  cuts  they  are  in- 
cluded with  the  respective  "straight"  cuts  to  wrhich  they  belong. 


Results  of  the  cutting  tests  are  summarized  in  the  following 
table.  The  weights  were  taken  in  terms  of  pounds  and  ounces 
but  are  here  reduced  to  decimals  for  convenience  of  comparison. 

TABLE  2. — WEIGHTS  AND  PERCENTAGES  OF  THE  STRAIGHT  WHOLESALE  CUTS 


Steer 
No.  1, 
pounds 

Steer 
No.  2, 

pounds- 

Steer 
No.  3, 
pounds 

Steer 
No.  1, 
percent 

Steer 
No.  2, 
percent 

Steer 
No.  3, 
percent 

Average 
percent 

Loin     

42.58 

63.45 

70.46 

15.75 

17.71 

16.60 

16.76 

Rib    

26.53 

35  .  78 

40.52 

9.81 

9.99 

9.54 

9.77 

Round    

60.15 

77.12 

92.11 

22  25 

21.53 

21.70 

21.78 

Chuck    

61.86 

77.07 

91.55 

22.88 

21.52 

21.56 

21.89 

Plate    

40.13 

51.95 

72.50 

14.84 

14.50 

17.08 

15.63 

Flank     

14.53 

19.30 

20.37 

5.37 

5.39 

4.80 

5.15 

Fore  shank  
Kidney   suet    .... 

13.93 
10.65 

16.50 
17.03 

21.96 
15.06 

5.15 
3.94 

4.61 
4.75 

5.17 
3.55 

4.97 
4.06 

Entire  side    

270.36 

358.20 

424.53 

99.99 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

The  proportions  of  the  various  cuts  as  shown  above  are  similar 
in  the  three  carcasses.  The  percentages  correspond  in  general  to 
average  results  of  other  tests  on  prime  steers.  Steer  No.  T  ap- 
pears to  have  been  relatively  lightest  in  loin  and  heaviest  in  round 
and  chuck;  Steer  No.  2  shows  the  largest  percentage  of  loin,  rib, 
and  kidney  suet,  and  the  smallest  shank ;  Steer  No.  3  was  lowest 
in  percentage  of  rib,  round,  chuck,  flank  and  kidney  suet,  and 
highest  in  shank  and  plate.  To  what  extent  these  differences  are 
due  to  unavoidable  variations  in  the  cutting  of  the  carcass,  it  is 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  143 


Off) 


LOIN 


H/ND   QUARTER. 


Rump. 

Round,  R.&5.  Off. 

Hind   shank  . 
LO/N 
TLANK 


QUARTER 


r" 

l\ 

^\ 
^J 

ft. 

R/J9 
CHUCK 

Chuck,  knuckle 
Clod. 
Neck 

'PLATE 

ouf. 

CHUCK  t 

(knuckle.  o<A)  I 

WHOLE5AL  £  •  CUT5  •  OF  -BEEF  - 

FIG.  3.  METHOD  OF  CUTTING  THE  THREE  SIDES,  SHOWING  WHOLESALE  CUTS. 

impossible  to  say,  but  probably  this  factor  exercised  considerable 
influence.  For  instance,  the  large  percentage  of  plate  in  Steer 
No.  3,  considered  in  connection  with  the  small  percentage  of  rib 
and  chuck,  indicates  that  the  plate  was  cut  slightly  higher  on  the 
side  than  was  the  case  in  the  other  carcasses.  The  large  percent- 
age of  round  compared  with  the  small  percentage  of  loin  in  the 


144 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


Hereford  suggests  that  the  round  probably  received  a  slight  ad- 
vantage in  cutting  this  carcass.  Undoubtedly,  however,  the  carcass 
of  Steer  No.  2  had  a  larger  actual  proportion  of  loin  and  suet  than 
the  others;  while  that  of  Steer  No.  I  was  naturally  heaviest  in  the 
chuck  and  lightest  in  the  loin. 

The  total  percentage  of  loin  and  rib  is  generally  considered 
an  important  indication  of  the  cutting  value  of  a  carcass ;  hence 
the  following  comparison  will  be  of  interest : 

Percent  loin  and  rib 

Steer    No.    1 25.24 

Steer   No.   2 27.83 

Steer    No.   3 26.05 

The  relative  proportions  of  the  fore  and  hind  quarters  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  table  were  calculated  from  the  weights  of 
wholesale  cuts  in  each  quarter. 

TABLE  3. — WEIGHTS  AND  PERCENTAGES  OF  THE  FORE  AND  HIND  QUARTERS 


Steer 
No.  1, 
pounds 

142.45 
127.91 

270.36 

Steer 
No.  2, 
pounds 

181.30 
176.42 

Steer 
No.  3, 
pound? 

Steer 
No.  1, 
percent 

Steer 
No.  2, 
percent 

50.68 
49.32 

100.00 

Steer 
No.  3, 
percent 

53.36 
46.64 

Average 
percent 

Fore   quarter    .  .  . 
Hind  quarter.  .  .  . 

226.53 
198.03 

424.56 

52.69 
47.31 

100.00 

52.21 
47.79 

Entire   side    .... 

357.72 

100.00 

100.00 

EDIBLE  MEAT  AND  WASTE 

The  straight  cuts  may  now  be  compared  with  reference  to  the 
relative  proportions  of  lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone  which  they  con- 
tain. For  the  sake  of  convenience  and  brevity,  the  discussions 
relative  to  the  food  values  and  waste  of  the  various  wholesale  and 
retail  cuts  will  be  confined  to  the  average  results  obtained  from 
the  three  carcasses  and  will  be  stated  in  percentages.  The  com- 
plete data  on  which  the  averages  are  based  will  be  found  in  the 
appendix.  The  following  table  is  based  upon  the  sum  of  the  data 
derived  from  the  various  retail  cuts  into  which  each  wholesale  cut 
was  divided. 

This  summary  shows  that  the  three  sides  used  in  this  test 
averaged  about  57  percent  lean  meat,  30  percent  visible  fat,  and 
12  percent  bone.  The  proportion  of  lean  in  the  various  cuts  (ex- 
cept the  kidney)  varied  from  about  one-third  in  the  flank  to  about 
two-thirds  in  the  chuck;  the  extreme  percentages  of  visible  fat 
were  1 1  percent  in  the  fore-shank  and  63  percent  in  the  flank ;  and 
the  percentage  of  bone  ranged  from  practically  nothing,  in  the 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


145 


TABLE  4. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE    FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  STRAIGHT 

WHOLESALE  CUTS 


Straight  wholesale  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

Loin  

58.53 

31.75 

8.89 

99.17 

Rib     

55  21 

30.17 

14.18 

99.56 

Round    

64.61 

18.03 

16.63 

99.27 

Chuck    

69  47 

18.63 

11.26 

99.36 

Plate    

50.61 

40.73 

8.47 

99.81 

Flank    

36.30 

63.18 

.25 

99.73 

Fore  shank   

4V  ,61 

11.63 

40.20 

99.44 

Kidney   suet    

7.011 

92.99 

0 

100.00 

Entire  side  

56  90 

30.29 

12.34 

99.53 

'Kidney. 

flank,  to  40  percent  in  the  fore  shank.  From  the  data  here  given 
we  may  also  calculate  the  relative  amounts  of  lean,  visible  fat, 
and  bone  in  the  hind  and  fore  quarters,  with  the  following-  results : 
hind  quarter,  54.42  percent  lean,  34.55  percent  visible  fat,  and 
10.71  percent  bone;  fore  quarter,  59.12  percent  lean,  26.69  percent 
fat,  and  13.73  percent  bone. 

In  order  to  render  the  important  data  in  Table  4  more  easily 
studied,  the  following  diagram  (Fig.  4)  is  presented. 


FIG.  4.    PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  STRAIGHT 

WHOLESALE  CUTS. 


146  BULLETIN    No.    158  [July, 

111  this  diagram,  and  in  similar  illustrations  in  the  following 
pages,  the  various  wholesale  cuts  are  represented  by  vertical  lines, 
each  being  designated  at  the  top.  The  horizontal  lines  represent 
percentages,  which  are  read  by  means  of  the  numerical  scale  at  the 
right  and  left.  The  irregular  lines  represent  various  constituents 
of  beef,  according  to  the  key  given  on  each  diagram;  thus  their 
position  and  direction  are  determined  by  the  percentage  of  each 
constituent  contained  in  the  different  wholesale  cuts. 

Referring  to  Fig.  4,  the  heavy  solid  line  shows  the  percentage 
of  lean  meat  in  each  of  the  seven  straight  cuts,  which  are  arranged 
from  left  to  right  in  order  of  the  percentage  of  lean  which  they 
contain.  The  minimum  percentage  of  this  constituent,  about  36 
percent,  occurs  in  the  flank  and  the  maximum,  about  70  percent, 
in  the  chuck;  while  the  comparatively  regular  ascending  course  of 
the  heavy  line  indicates  various  percentages  of  lean  in  other  cuts 
between  these  extremes.  Following  the  broken  line  from  left  to 
right  it  is  evident  that  in  general  the  percentage  of  fat  varies  in- 
versely as  the  percentage  of  lean ,  the  shank,  however,  being  a  prom- 
inent exception.  The  dotted  line,  representing  the  percentage  of 
bone,  shows  less  variation  than  do  the  others,  but,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  shank,  its  general  direction  corresponds  to  the  line 
showing  the  percentage  of  lean,  and  is  opposite  that  of  the  fat. 
The  large  percentage  of  bone  in  the  shank  corresponds  to  its  low 
percentage  of  fat,  and  in  both  constituents  this  cut  varies  widely 
from  the  others. 

In  general,  the  cuts  containing  a  large  percentage  of  lean  have 
a  small  percentage  of  visible  fat,  and  vice  versa,  while  the  relative 
weight  of  bone  is  more  variable.  The  round  and  chuck  are  the 
leanest  cuts  of  the  carcass.  Loin  and  rib  cuts  are  intermediate 
with  respect  to  lean,  fat,  and  bone.  The  flank  and  fore  shank  are 
lowr  in  percentage  of  lean,  the  former  being  high  in  percentage  of 
fat  and  the  latter  in  proportion  of  bone. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  147 


RELATIVE  ECONOMY  OF  MEAT  FROM  THE  STRAIGHT  WHOLE- 
SALE CUTS 

The  relative  economy  of  the  different  cuts  may  be  further  ex- 
pressed in  terms  of  the  net  cost  per  pound  of  lean  and  of  total 
meat  (consisting  of  all  the  lean  and  visible  fat)  in  each  cut  at 
market  prices.  This  is  calculated  by  dividing  the  percentage  of 
each  constituent  into  the  market  price  per  pound  of  the  entire  cut. 

Thus  the  cost  per  pound  of  lean  is  based  on  the  proportion  of 
lean  contained  in  the  cut  in  question,  and  the  cost  per  pound  of 
gross  meat  is  determined  from  the  total  percentage  of  lean  and  fat. 
For  this  comparison  wholesale  prices  are  used,  leaving  the  retail 
cost  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  various  retail  cuts. 
(Table  19). 

TABLE  5. — COST  OF  LEAN   AND  OF  TOTAL  MEAT  IN  THE   STRAIGHT  WHOLESALE 
CUTS  AT  MARKET  PRICES 


Straight 
wholesale  cuts 

Wholesale  price 
per  pound  of  cut, 
cents 

Cost  per  pound 
of  lean  in  cut, 
cents 

Cost  per  pound 
of  total  meat  in 
cut,  cents 

Loin    

18.5 

31.6 

20.5 

Rib      

15.0 

27.1 

17.5 

Round    

11.5 

17.8 

13.9 

Chuck    

9.5 

13.7 

10.8 

Plate    

8.0 

15.8 

8.7 

Flank   

8.0 

22.0 

8.0 

Fore  shank  

5.0 

10.5 

8.4 

The  net  cost  per  pound  of  lean  is,  in  general,  greatest  in  the 
cuts  which  command  the  highest  prices,  and  vice  versa.  The  flank 
is  an  exception  to  this  rule,  and  the  chuck  is  more  economical  in 
this  respect  than  the  plate.  Referring  to  the  last  column  it  is  also 
observed  that  the  more  expensive  the  cut,  the  greater  the  cost  per 
pound  of  visible  fat  and  lean  combined,  the  flank  being  the  only 
exception.  From  these  figures  it  is  apparent  that  food  values  of 
beef  cuts  do  not  correspond  to  their  wholesale  market  prices,  and 
that  the  cheaper  cuts  are  by  far  the  most  economical  sources  of 
both  lean  and  fat  meat.  On  the  whole,  the  different  cuts  vary 
more  widely  in  net  cost  of  food  ingredients  than  in  market 
price  per  pound  of  gross  meat.  The  following  discussion  tends 
to  confirm  these  statements. 


148  BULLETIN  No.  158  [July, 

CHEMICAL  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BONELESS  MEAT 
OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS 

After  separating  each  of  the  wholesale  cuts  mechanically  into 
lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone,  as  already  described,  the  lean  and  the 
visible  fat  were  sampled  for  chemical  analysis.  The  rump,  hind 
shank,  shoulder  clod,  and  neck  were  sampled  separately,  thus  mak- 
ing eleven  cuts  in  all,  as  illustrated  by  Fig.  3  on  page  143. 

With  Steers  Nos.  I  and  2  the  visible  fat  from  all  the  cuts  was 
composited  and  analyzed,  while  the  lean  meat  from  each  of  the 
cuts  was  subjected  to  a  detailed  chemical  study.  With  Steer  No.  3, 
however,  the  visible  fat  and  lean  of  each  cut  were  combined  and 
analyzed.  In  none  of  these  cases  was  the  bone  subjected  to  chemi- 
cal analysis. 

Methods  of  Analysis 

The  following  determinations  were  made  on  the  samples  of 
boneless  meat : 

1.  Water 

2.  Dry  substance,  water-soluble  and  insoluble 

3.  Fat,  ether-soluble  matter 

4.  Protein,   water-soluble  and  insoluble 

5.  Organic  extractives,  nitrogenous  and   non-nitrogenous 

6.  Ash,  water-soluble  and  insoluble 

7.  Phosphorus,  water-soluble  organic  and  inorganic,  and  water-insoluble 

The  methods  used  in  making  the  chemical  study  of  the  various 
cuts  of  beef  were  those  which  have  been  published  from  the  Lab- 
oratory of  Physiological  Chemistry  of  this  department.1  It  is  not 
the  object  of  the  writers  to  outline  these  methods  at  this  time  nor 
to  discuss  these  technical  data  excepting  in  as  practical  a  way  as 
possible. 

As  in  the  preceding  discussion,  the  corresponding  data  from 
the  three  steers  have  been  averaged,  and  it  is  upon  these  average 
data  that  the  statements  herein  are  based.  The  detailed  chemical 
results  for  each  of  the  animals  will,  however,  be  found  in  full  in 
the  appendix.  Attention  should  again  be  called  to  the  fact  that 
the  animals  used  in  these  tests  were  choice  and  prime  steers. 

PERCENTAGES   OE  WATER,   DRY   SUBSTANCE,   AND  FAT   IN   THE 
BONELESS  MEAT  OE  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS  OE  BEEF 

In  the  following  table  the  data  are  given  showing  the  distribu- 
tion of  water,  dry  substance,  and  fat  in  the  boneless  meat  (all 
lean  and  fat)  from  the  eleven  cuts.  The  results  are  expressed  in 
percentages  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  fresh  substance. 

'Journal  American  Chemical  Society,  27,  658>-678,  and  28,  25-64  (1905), 
Grindley  and  Emmett. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


149 


TABLE  6. — PERCENTAGES  OF  WATER,  SOLUBLE  AND  INSOLUBLE  DRY  SUBSTANCE,  AND 
FAT  IN  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS 


Wholesale  cut 

Water 

32.26 
39.42 
45.15 
46.25 
47.42 
55.47 
56.32 
60.95 
61.02 
60.86 
63.04 

Dry  substance 

Other  than  fat 

Fat 

57.16 
48.57 
40  .  62 
38.95 
37.71 
27.54 
26.12 
19.98 
20.77 
19.65 
17.96 

Total 

Sol- 
uble 

Insol- 
uble 

Total 

10.61 
12.16 
14.29 
14.75 
15.17 
17.35 
17.87 
19.55 
18.74 
19.44 
19.50 

Flank               

1.73 
2.29 
3.06 
3.33 
3.48 
3.82 
3.80 
3.80 
3.90 
4.89 
4.48 

8.88 
9.89 
11.23 
11.42 
11.69 
13.53 
14.07 
15.75 
14.84 
14.55 
15.02 

67.77 
60  75 
54.91 
53.70 
52.88 
44.89 
43.99 
39.53 
39.51 
39.09 
37.46 

plate                           

Rib          

Rump                             

Loin    -  

Chuck  

Neck    

Fore   shank    

Hind  shank          

Round    

Clod    

In  the  above  table  dry  substance  refers  to  that  portion  of  the 
flesh  that  is  not  driven  off  upon  heating  the  sample  at  the  boil- 
ing point  of  water,  or  the  flesh  minus  the  water  contained  in  the 
cut.  Fat  includes  not  only  visible  fat  but  also  all  the  ether  ex- 
tract derived  from  the  so-called  lean  of  each  cut.  The  soluble  dry 
substance  is  that  portion  of  the  meat  which  is  dissolved  out  by 
pure  water  at  ordinary  room  temperature.  It  is  supposed  that 
the  water-soluble  constituents  of  flesh  are  more  easily  and  quickly 
digested  than  the  non-soluble,  and  hence  of  greater  use  to  the 
needs  of  the  body.  The  insoluble  dry  substance  other  than  fat  is 
that  portion  which  remains  after  treatment  with  water. 

Water. — The  cuts  are  arranged  according  to  the  percentages  of 
water  they  contain.  The  percentage  of  water  represents  all  that 
portion  of  each  cut  not  included  in  the  dry  substance.  The  wide 
variation  in  water  content  of  different  cuts  of  beef  is  here  shown 
in  a  striking  manner,  ranging  from  about  one-third  up  to  two- 
thirds  of  the  weight  of  edible  meat. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  arrangement  of  the  various  cuts  is 
substantially  in  inverse  order  with  respect  to  the  percentages  of 
fat  and  of  total  dry  substance;  also  that  in  general  the  higher 
the  percentage  of  fat,  the  lower  the  percentage  of  water.  Two 
of  the  cheaper  cuts  of  the  carcass,  viz.,  the  flank  and  plate,  contain 
the  lowest  percentages  of  water,  due  to  their  large  proportions  of 
fat.  The  round  and  clod  rank  highest  in  respect  to  water  because 
of  the  large  percentages  of  lean  meat  they  contain.  The  high- 
priced  rib  and  loin  cuts  are  intermediate. 


150 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July, 


Dry  Substance. — The  relationship  between  the  dry  substance 
content  of  the  eleven  wholesale  cuts  is  shown  graphically  in  Fig.  5. 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  upper  curve  gives  the  distribution  of  the 
percentages  of  total  dry  substance  in  the  boneless  meat.  This 
curve  rises  continuously  from  the  clod  to  the  flank  cuts,  indicating 
an  increasing  percentage  of  dry  substance  with  the  fatter  cuts. 
The  cheaper  cuts  such  as  the  shank,  clod,  and  round  have  the  small- 
est percentages  of  dry  substance. 

The  order  of  increasing  percentages  of  soluble  dry  substance 
shown  by  the  second  curve,  corresponds,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  minor  rearrangements,  to  the  order  of  cuts  given  in  Fig.  6 
for-  fat.  It  is  seen  that  the  expensive  cuts  are  not  at  all  favorably 
distinguished  from  the  cheaper  ones,  the  loin  and  rib  cuts  possess- 
ing, in  fact,  smaller  percentages  of  soluble  dry  substance  than  the 
average-priced  cuts.  The  round,  however,  a  medium-priced  cut, 
has  the  largest  proportion  of  soluble  matter,  4.89  percent ;  the  clod 
comes  next,  having  4.48  percent;  while  the  flank  is  lowest,  1.73 
percent.  The  values  for  the  loin  and  rib  are  respectively  3.48  and 
3.06  percent. 


9               5             *                          *                                                         u             * 

§        i      §<      31       2        $        z        i                 Si 
§        S      it      n       *        5        5        1        5        i        d 

PER 
CENT 

69 

60 
33 
SO 
4S 
<K> 
5 
O 

/ 

V 

/ 

/ 

^--" 

/ 

/ 

^^ 





-  —  __ 

1  SOLUBLE     DRY    SUBSTANCE  
TOTAL   DRY   SUBSTANCE                                        |  

FIG.  5.     PERCENTAGES  otf  TOTAL/  AND  SOLUBLE  DRY  SUBSTANCE  IN 
BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS. 


/p/,?]         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


151 


If  the  influence  of  the  difference  in  fat  be  eliminated  by  calcu- 
lating the  soluble  dry  substance  of  each  cut  on  the  fat-free  basis, 
the  order  of  the  cuts  is  considerably  modified,  as  the  following 

data  show : 

Percent 

Round 6.09 

Loin    5.59 

Clod    S46 

Rump    5.45 

Chuck   5-2? 

Rib  5-15 

Neck 5.14 

Hind  shank  4.92 . 

Fore  shank   4.75 

Plate   4-45 

Flank 4.04 

The  most  significant  rearrangements  are  those  of  the  loin  and 
rib  cuts.  According  to  these  calculations  the  new  arrangement  of 
the  cuts  conforms  more  nearly  to  the  order  of  their  decreasing 
popularity  as  indicated  by  their  market  value,  the  round,  loin, 
rump,  chuck,  and  rib  cuts,  representing  the  most  expensive  portions 
of  the  beef  carcass,  clustering  toward  the  top. 

Fat. — The  distribution  of  the  fat  among  the  cuts  is  represented 
in  Fig.  6  by  two  curves,  one  on  the  fresh  and  the  other  on  the  dry 
basis.  These  two  curves  run  approximately  parallel.  This  latter 


PER 
CENT 


33 


I  « 

CENT 


ON   THE  FRESH  BASIS  — 
ON    THE   DRY    BASIS-  - 


U 


85 


63 


$ IG.  r>.    PERCENTAGES  OK  FAT  IN  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLHSAI,E 

CUTS. 


152  BULLETIN    No.   158  [July, 

relation  indicates  that  an  increase  in  the  percentage  of  fat  in  a  cut 
results  in  a  decrease  in  the  percentage  of  water.  In  view  of  the 
great  differences  between  the  various  cuts  as  regards  fat  content, 
the  question  arises  whether  these  differences  do  not  largely  or 
entirely  account  for  the  differences  in  the  percentages  of  dry  sub- 
stance and  water.  This  question  is  answered  in  part  by  eliminat- 
ing the  fat  from  the  percentage  of  dry  substance,  that  is,  by 
calculating  the  percentage  of  dry  substance  other  than  fat  to  the 
fat-free  basis.  The  uniformity  of  the  data  in  this  form  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that,  as  regards  the  water  content  of  the  boneless 
fat-free  meat,  the  eleven  cuts  do  not  distinctly  differ  among  them- 
selves, being  very  nearly  the  same. 

The  differences  among  the  eleven  cuts  of  beef  as  to  their  content 
of  fat  is  shown  in  the  curves  (Fig.  6).  The  extreme  positions  are 
occupied  by  the  clod  and  round  cuts,  on  one  hand,  and  the  plate 
and  flank  cuts,  on  the  other.  The  loin,  rib,  and  rump  cuts  contain 
more  fat  than  the  chuck,  neck,  and  shanks.  So  marked  are  these 
differences  in  fat  that  the  percentages  of  all  the  constituents  except 
the  total  dry  substance,  calculated  on  the  fresh  basis  vary  inversely 
as  the  percentage  of  fat.  If  the  influence  of  the  fat  be  eliminated 
by  calculating  the  percentage  of  total  dry  substance  on  the  fat-free 
basis,  it  is  found  that  the  leaner  cuts  are  not  clearly  distinguished 
from  one  another. 

PERCENTAGES  OE  TOTAL  AND  SOLUBLE  PROTEIN  IN  THE  BONELESS 
MEAT  OE  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS 

Total  Protein. — The  term  protein  as  used  here  refers  to  the 
percentage  of  protein  nitrogen  multiplied  by  the  factor  6.25.  As 
already  stated,  protein  is  the  essential  constituent  of  lean  meat.  It 
consists  largely  of  albumin  compounds  which  serve  as  muscle- 
building  material  in  the  human  body.  The  protein  dissolved  out 
by  water  at  room  temperature,  that  is,  water-soluble  protein,  is 
thought  to  be  more  easily  and  quickly  digested  and  hence  more 
available  to  the  body  than  the  water-insoluble  protein.  Since  beef 
is  used  chiefly  for  the  lean  meat  it  contains,  the  economic  signifi- 
cance of  the  data  given  in  Table  7  is  readily  apparent. 

The  curves  of  the  total  and  soluble  protein  are  given  in  Fig.  7. 
The  order  of  the  cuts  for  the  two  forms  of  protein  is  the  inverse 
of  that  for  the  dry  substance  and  fat;  i.e.,  the  shanks,  clod,  and 
round  contain  the  highest  amounts,  and  the  flank,  plate,  and  rib 
the  lowest.  Since  a  high  percentage  of  water  indicates  a  low 
percentage  of  fat,  it  naturally  accompanies  a  large  percentage  of 
lean  meat.  Consequently  the  curve  indicates  that  a  relatively  large 
percentage  of  protein  is  contained  in  the  cheaper  cuts  of  beef,  while 


/£/<?]        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


153 


TABLE  7. — PERCENTAGES  OF  WATER-SOLUBLE,  INSOLUBLE,  AND  TOTAL  PROTEIN  IN 
THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS 


Wholesale  cuts 

Soluble 

Insoluble 

Total 

Pore  shank   

1.42 

15.56 

16.98 

Clod    

1.81 

14.88 

16.69 

Round    

2.08 

14.42 

16.50 

Hind  shank         

1.59 

14  67 

16.26 

Neck    

1.65 

13.94 

15.59 

Chuck    

1.47 

13.40 

14.87 

Loin    

1.37 

11.59 

12.96 

Rump    

1.26 

11   30 

12  56 

Rib    

1.20 

11   12 

12  32 

Plate  

.83 

9  76 

10  59 

Flank    

.66 

8.78 

9  44 

the  high-priced  cuts,  the  rib  and  loin,  are  intermediate.  Thus  the 
most  essential  food  constituent  of  beef  is  seen  to  vary  in  the  differ- 
ent cuts  quite  independently  of  market  prices. 


SOLUBLE     PROTEIN 
TOTAL,    PROTEIN  


FIG.  7.    PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTAL.  AND  SOLUBLE  PROTEIN  IN  THE  BONELESS 
MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS. 

The  relationship  between  the  water,  fat,  and  total  protein  con- 
tent of  the  eleven  wholesale  cuts  is  shown  in  Fig.  8.  The  curve 
representing  the  distribution  of  the  percentages  of  total  protein  in 


154 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July, 


the  boneless  meat  rises  continuously  from  the  flank  to  the  fore 
shank,  being  approximately  the  same  as  the  curve  representing  the 
percentages  of  dry  substance  other  than  fat. 

When  figured  on  the  dry  basis  the  curve  shows  that  the 
percentage  of  protein  increases  much  more  rapidly  from  the  flank 
to  the  fore  shank,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  shanks,  clod,  round,  and 
neck  contain  more  lean  and  less  fat,  and  also  to  the  fact  that  lean 
is  higher  in  water.  If  the  fat  be  eliminated  from  consideration  by 
calculating  the  protein  on  the  fat-free  basis,  the  eleven  cuts  are 
not  markedly  distinguished  from  one  another,  as  the  curve  in  the 
diagram  shows.  Here  the  curve  is  nearly  a  straight  line,  again 
showing  that  the  market  prices  have  no  relation  to  the  nutritive 
value  of  the  cuts. 

From  the  data  available  it  would  seem  that  the  most  expensive 
cuts  of  meat,  the  rib  and  the  loin,  occupy  an  intermediate  position 
as  to  their  protein  content  with  respect  to  the  eleven  cuts  of  beef. 
This  statement  applies  when  the  data  are  presented  on  either  the 
fresh  or  the  water-free  basis,  but  not  on  the  fat-free  basis.  In 
this  last  case  there  is  little  or  no  difference  between  any  of  the  cuts. 


PER 

CENT 

44 


uZ 

f< 

OX 

U(ft    PER 

CENT 
44 


FRESH   BASIS  

DRY  BASIS 

FAT-FREE  BASIS 


FIG.  8.    PERCENTAGE  OF  TOTAL.  PKOTEIN  IN  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OK  THE 

WHOLESALE  CUTS. 

Soluble  Protein. — On  an  average  about  one-tenth  of  the  total 
protein  of  beef  is  soluble  in  water.  The  data  given  in  Table  7, 
page  153,  show  the  relative  proportions  of  soluble  protein  in  the 


/<?/.?]         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


155 


various  cuts.  In  Fig.  7,  page  153,  the  distribution  of  soluble  protein 
is  shown.  The  percentage  values  for  the  individual  cuts  arrange 
themselves  in  approximately  the  same  order  as  the  percentages  of 
total  protein.  The  most  significant  difference  in  the  two  cases  is 
the  position  of  the  round  cut,  which  is  third  in  relative  value  as 
regards  total  protein  and  first  as  regards  soluble  protein.  The 
percentages  of  soluble  protein  range  from  0.66  in  the  flank  to 
2.08  in  the  round.  These  differences  also  appear  to  be  largely 
due  to  the  fat  content  of  the  cuts.  When  the  data  are  calculated 
to  the  fat-free  basis,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  arrangement 
of  the  cuts  then  conforms  more  nearly  to  the  current  market  prices 


Organic  Extractives. — The  organic  extractives  of  meat  consist 
of  certain  water-soluble  compounds.  They  aid  in  giving  cooked 
meat  its  flavor.  They  also  serve  in  part  as  stimuli  to  several  of  the 
glands  of  the  digestive  tract.  They  are  increased  to  some  extent 
during  the  ripening  of  meats.  The  nitrogenous  form  of  extractives 
is  made  up  mostly  of  creatin  and  purine  bodies.  The  non-nitro- 
genous form  is  composed  chiefly  of  lactic  acid  and  glycogen.  The 
organic  extractives  form  the  essential  ingredient  of  beef  extract, 
and,  altho  possessing  only  slight  food  value,  their  influence  on  the 
palatability  of  meat  undoubtedly  renders  them  of  considerable 
nutritive  importance. 

The  data  given  in  Table  8  show  that  the  various  cuts  rank  in 
practically  the  same  order  with  regard  to  organic  extractives  as  to 

TABLE  8. — PERCENTAGES  OF  ORGANIC  EXTRACTIVES  AND  ASH  IN   THE   BONELESS 
MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS 


Wholesale  cuts 

Organic  extractives 

Ash 

Nitro- 
genous 

Non-nitro- 
genous 

Total 

Sol- 
uble 

.76 
.71 
.65 
.64 
•.66 
.53 
.53 
-.54 
.50 
.38 
.30 

Insol- 
uble 

Total 

Round           

.04 

1.11 
1.12 
.99 

.92 
.90 
.84 
.91 
.88 
.75 
.62 
•.42 

2.05 
1.96 
1.73 
1.67 
1.68 
1.54 
1.54 
1.57 
1.35 
1.08 
.76 

.11 
.14 
.18 
.17 
12 
.14 
.11 
.10 
.12 
.13 
.10 

.87 
85 
.83 
.81 
.78 
.75 
.64 
64 
.62 
.51 
.40 

Clod               

.94 
.74 

.  75 
.78 
.70 
.63 
.69 
.60 
.46 
.34 

Fore   shank    

Hind  shank    

Chuck    

Neck                      

Rump    

ILoin    

Rib          

Plate         

Flank    

156 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


protein.  Comparing  these  data  with  those  in  the  preceding  table 
(No.  7)  a  rather  close  correlation  is  observed  between  the  amounts 
of  protein  and  organic  extractives,  indicating  again  that  the  leaner 
cuts  contain  larger  proportions  of  organic  extractives.  Altho,  so 
far  as  these  figures  indicate,  no  relation  exists  between  the  market 
prices  and  the  flavor  of  the  various  cuts,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  cheap  cuts  contain  considerably  larger  percentages  of 
flavoring  matter,  as  measured  by  the  percentages  of  organic  extrac- 
tives and  soluble  ash,  than  do  several  of  the  high-priced  cuts.  The 
proportions  of  nitrogenous  and  non-nitrogenous  organic  extractives 
are  similar  in  the  different  cuts,  the  average  ratio  being  about 
i  to  1.25. 

In  Fig.  9  the  data  for  the  total  and  the  nitrogenous  organic 
extractives  are  represented  by  curves  showing  the  relative  distri- 
bution of  the  two  forms  among  the  eleven  cuts  of  beef.  In  general, 
the  two  curves  run  in  the  same  direction;  that  is,  the  percentage 
values  increase  in  both  cases  from  the  flank  to  the  round  cuts.  The 
chief  irregularity  is  in  the  fore  shank,  where  the  percentage  of 
nitrogenous  extractives  seems  to  drop,  giving  the  chuck  cut  a 
higher  value.  The  more  expensive  cuts,  the  rib  and  the  loin,  occupy 
an  intermediate  position,  while  the  round,  clod,  and  chuck  are  near 
the  top  of  the  curve. 


PER 

CENT 

2.00 


I.7S 


1.50 


I.Z5 


$                   Z                                        fc                   *                   ,                 QZ                 2                UZ                Q 

?  X5    5    1    1    I    ii    1    si        3 

u.             a             tr             a             2             _i            Z(o           u           L.IO           o             C 

PER 
CCNT 

Z.OO 
1.73 
1.50 
1.25 
1.00 
075 
OSO 

azs 

^^^" 

/ 

^" 

^_^^^-^~ 

^^^ 

, 

/ 

/ 

^- 

4 
* 

--'-' 

,''~' 

* 
s 

<* 

TOTAL.    ORGANIC    EXTRACTIVES 
NITROGENOUS    ORGANIC     EXTR/ 

CTIVES  

OM 

FIG.  9.    PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTAL  AND  NITROGENOUS  ORGANIC  EXTRACTIVES 
IN  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS. 


1<)I2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


157 


Asli. — Ash,  or  mineral  matter,  is  the  residue  that  remains  after 
cautiously  burning  the  sample  of  meat  until  all  the  organic  matter 
has  been  driven  off.  It  is  made  up  chiefly  of  the  chlorids  and 
phosphates  of  potassium,  sodium,  calcium,  and  magnesium.  These 
contribute  to  the  structure  of  bone  and  other  body  tissues,  aid  in 
the  digestive  functions,  and  increase  the  palatability  of  cooked  meats. 

In  Table  8  the  percentage  values  for  the  soluble,  insoluble,  and 
total  ash  are  given.  The  soluble  ash  forms  from  70  to  87  percent 
of  the  total.  The  percentage  values  for  the  total  ash  are  about 
one-half  those  for  the  total  organic  extractives  and  about  the  same 
as  those  for  the  nitrogenous  extractives.  The  soluble  and  total  ash 
data  are  higher  in  the  cheaper  cuts. 

In  Fig.  10  the  relative  distribution  of  the  total  and  the  soluble 
ash  is  shown.  There  is  a  close  correlation  between  the  two  curves. 
The  main  exception  in  the  soluble  ash  lies  in  the  chuck  cut.  To 
give  a  continuously  rising  curve  the  chuck  cut  should  interchange 
places  with  the  fore  shank.  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  organic 
extractives,  the  rib  and  loin  cuts  occupy  a  place  on  the  curve  below 
the  average  value,  being  third  and  fourth  respectively  from  the 
flank,  between  the  plate  and  rump  cuts.  The  chuck,  shanks,  clod, 
and  round  cuts  are  nearer  the  top. 


PER 
CENT 
0.86 


If 

xn 


uZ 
ff< 
PI 


0.48 


7 


PER 
CCNT 


0.34 


FIG.  10.    PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTALBAND  SOLUBLE  ASH  IN  THE  BONELESS 
MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS. 


158 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


These  facts  are  of  further  interest  when  we  consider  that  while 
it  is  known  that  some  of  the  mineral  constituents  of  meat  con- 
tribute to  its  palatability,  it  is  probable  that  the  water-soluble 
constituents  are  the  most  active.  The  percentage  of  soluble  ash  in 
the  edible  meat  of  the  different  cuts  of  beef  should  therefore  be 
some  indication  of  the  relative  degree  of  palatability.  The  curve 
for  the  soluble  ash  calculated  on  the  fresh  basis  does  not,  however, 
distinguish  the  cheaper  from  the  dearer  cuts  of  beef.  If  these 
data  be  calculated  to  the  fat-free  basis,  the  tendency  then  seems  to 
be  toward  making  the  different  cuts  more  nearly  alike;  thus,  the 
round  contains  0.95  percent  soluble  ash  and  the  flank  0.70  percent, 
while  on  the  fresh  basis  the  range  for  these  cuts  is  0.76  and  0.30 
percent  respectively. 

In  the  same  way,  when  the  total  ash  is  calculated  to  the  fat-free 
basis  the  differences  between  the  minimum  and  maximum  percent- 
ages are  much  less.  Thus,  the  round  has  the  maximum  percentage 
of  i. 08  and  the  flank  the  minimum  of  0.93. 

Phosphorus. — In  view  of  the  important  functions  of  phosphorus 
in  animal  nutrition,  as  indicated  by  recent  investigations,  a  compari- 
son of  the  forms  and  amounts  as  they  occur  in  the  various  cuts  is 
of  interest.  The  data  in  the  following  table  show  that  the  per- 
centages of  total  phosphorus  vary  from  0.077  in  the  flank  to  0.184 
in  the  round.  Thus  the  various  cuts  rank  in  substantially  the  same 
order  with  respect  to  phosphorus  and  ash  content.  Phosphorus, 
like  total  mineral  matter,  is  most  abundant  in  the  leaner  cuts  of 
beef,  and  vice  versa;  and  its  amounts  are  entirely  independent  of 
current  market  prices  of  the  various  cuts. 

TABLE  9. — PERCENTAGES  OF  SOLUBLE  AND  INSOLUBLE  PHOSPHORUS  IN  THE  BONE- 
LESS MEAT  OF  EACH  CUT 


Soluble 

Insoluble 

Total 

Inorganic 

Organic 

Total 

Round  

.093 

032 

125 

.059 

.184 

Clod  

094 

033 

127 

.046 

173 

Hind  shank  

085 

024 

109 

052 

161 

Chuck  

091 

015 

106 

052 

158 

Neck  

085 

013 

098 

050 

148 

Fore  shank  

092 

016 

108 

033 

141 

L>oin  

072 

017 

089 

053 

142 

Rump  

062 

022 

084 

051 

135 

Rib  

065 

019 

087 

043 

130 

Plate  

.050 

015 

065 

039 

104 

Flank  

048 

006 

054 

0°3 

077 

ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


159 


The  amounts  of  soluble  phosphorus  are,  in  general,  about  twice 
as  great  as  those  of  insoluble  phosphorus,  and  the  different  cuts 
stand  in  approximately  the  same  order  with  regard  to  the  soluble 
and  insoluble  forms  as  with  respect  to  the  total.  The  exceptions 
to  this  rule  do  not  appear  to  follow  any  regular  order.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  inorganic  and  the  organic  forms  of  soluble  phos- 
phorus, as  indicated  by  the  first  and  second  columns  of  the  table. 


PER 

CENT 

0.18 


UZ 

tr  < 
ox 
u.m 


0.12 


0.10 


006 


006 


0.12 


0.08 


0.06 


FIG.  11.    PERCENTAGES  OF  TOTAL  AND  SOLUBLE  PHOSPHORUS  IN  THE 
BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  "WHOLESALE  CUTS. 

The  above  diagram  (Fig.  n)  shows  the  distribution  of  the 
total  and  the  soluble  phosphorus  in  the  eleven  wholesale  cuts.  From 
these  curves  it  is  apparent  that  the  prices  of  the  various  cuts  of 
beef  are  independent  of  their  phosphorus  content  either  total  or 
soluble. 

RELATIVE  FUEL  VALUE  OE  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OE  THE  WHOLE- 
SALE CUTS 

As  stated  previously,  fat,  which  is  one  of  the  chief  food 
nutrients  of  meat,  either  is  deposited  in  the  body  as  such,  or  else 
yields  energy,  i.e.,  it  produces  heat  and  thus  has  fuel  value.  Pro- 
tein, the  other  chief  food  nutrient  of  meat,  may  be  used  in  the 
body  not  only  for  the  formation  of  muscular  tissue  but  also  for 
the  production  of  energy. 


160 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


It  therefore  will  be  of  interest  to  compare  the  fuel  value  of  the 
fat  and  protein  in  the  different  cuts  of  beef,  and  also  to  compare 
the  total  fuel  value  of  the  cuts.  It  has  been  found  experimentally 
that  a  gram1  of  fat  when  burned  will  yield  9.45  calories2  of  heat 
and  that  a  gram  of  protein  will  produce  4.35  calories.3 

If  then  the  composition  of  the  meat  is  known,  the  fuel  value  can 
be  calculated  by  means  of  the  above  factors.  In  the  following 
table  these  values  are  given  for  each  of  the  eleven  wholesale  cuts 
and  for  the  percentage  distribution  of  the  calories  between  the  fat 
and  protein.  In  order  to  make  the  relative  comparison  of  the  cuts 
more  direct,  the  amounts  of  boneless  meat  necessary  to  furnish 
1000  calories  have  also  been  calculated. 


TABLE  10. — RELATIVE  FUEL  VALUE  OF  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  WHOLESALE 

CUTS 


Wholesale  cuts 

Calories*  furnished  by  100 
grams  of  boneless  meat 

Percentage 
distribution  of 
calories 

Pounds  of  bone- 
less meat  re- 
quired to  furnish 
1000  calories 

Fat  x9 

Protein  x4 

Total 

In  fat 

[n  protein 

Flank    

514.4 
437.1 
365.6 
350.5 
339.4 
247.9 
235.1 
186.9 
179.8 
176.9 
161.6 

40.5 
'46.0 
54.1 
55.3 
57.4 
65.8 
67.9 
71.0 
73.9 
73.6 
73.5 

554.9 
483.1 
419.7 
405.8 
396.8 
313.7 
303.0 
257.9 
253.7 
250.5 
235.1 

92.7 
90.5 
87.1 
86.4 
85.5 
79.0 
77.6 
72.5 
70.9 
70.6 
68.7 

7.3 
9.5 
12.9 
13.6 
14.5 
21.0 
22.4 
27.5 
29.1 
29.4 
31.3 

.40 
.46 
.52 
.54 
.56 
.70 
.73 
86 
.87 
.88 
.94 

Plate    

Rib    

Rump    

Loin    

Chuck    

Neck    

Hind   shank    

Fore   shank    

Round    

Clod    

In  the  above  table  the  data  were  calculated  as  follows :  The 
percentages  of  fat  in  the  various  cuts  were  obtained  from  Table  6, 
page  149.  Those  for  the  protein,  as  previously  referred  to  in  Table 
7,  page  153,  are  not  applicable.  In  this  case  the  total  nitrogen 
content  of  the  meat  was  multiplied  by  6.25  to  obtain  crude  protein, 
that  being  the  value  usually  assigned  in  calculating  the  energy  of 
protein.  The  percentage  of  fat  was  multiplied  by  9,  and  the  per- 


'453.59  grams  equal  one  pound. 

2A  large  calorie  is  the  amount  of  heat  required  to  raise  the  temperature  of 
one  kilogram  of  water  one  degree  Centigrade. 

S95  percent  of  the  energy  of  fat  and  92  percent  of  that  of  protein  are 
available  in  the  case  of  man.  Hence,  the  approximate  fuel  values  of  fat  and 
protein  are  9=  (9.45x95)  and  4=  (4.35x92)  calories  per  gram  respectively. 

'Large   calorie. 


1912]        HCONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  161 

centage  of  protein  by  4,  and  the  two  results  added  to  give  the 
total  calories  in  the  cut.  Thus,  in  the  flank,  the  percentage  of  fat 
is  57.16,  and  that  of  protein  10.12.  Therefore,  one  hundred  grams 
of  the  meat  will  yield  514.4  calories  from  the  fat  (57.16x9)  and 
40.5  calories  from  the  protein  (10.12x4),  making  a  total  of  554.9 
calories. 

The  data  in  the  table  show,  as  would  be  expected,  the  high 
calorific  value  of  those  cuts  which  have  a  high  percentage  of  fat. 
Thus,  in  the  third  column  the  flank,  plate,  rib,  rump  and  loin  cuts 
are  from  one  and  one-half  to  two  times  as  great  in  fuel  value  as  the 
shanks,  round,  and  clod.  These  differences  are  shown  in  column  T, 
also,  where  the  extremes  are  514.4  calories  for  the  flank  and  161.6 
calories  for  the  clod.  In  column  4  the  percentage  distribution  of 
calories  in  the  fat  is  shown  to  range  from  68.7  in  the  clod  to  92.7 
in  the  flank  cut.  In  the  rib  and  the  loin  cuts  the  fat  furnishes 
87.1  and  85.5  percent  respectively  of  the  fuel  value,  while  in  the 
shanks,  round,  and  clod  cuts  the  fat  makes  up  about  69  percent. 
The  protein,  on  the  other  hand,  supplies  from  7.3  percent  of  the 
total  calorific  value  in  the  flank  cut  to  31.3  percent  in  the  clod 'cut. 
In  order  to  make  a  more  direct  comparison  of  the  different  cuts, 
the  amount  of  boneless  meat  required  to  furnish  1000  calories  has 
been  calculated.  These  data,  in  the  last  column,  show  that  the 
flank  and  plate  cuts  require  the  smallest  amounts,  0.40  and  0.46 
pounds  respectively.  The  rib,  rump,  and  loin  cuts  come  next, 
averaging  0.54  pounds.  The  chuck  and  neck  cuts  follow  with 
values  averaging  0.71  pounds.  The  shanks  and  round  run  about 
the  same,  varying  from  0.86  pounds  for  the  hind  shank  to  0.88 
pounds  for  the  round  and  averaging  0.87  pounds  for  all  three  cuts. 
The  clod  cut  requires  the  largest  amount  of  boneless  meat,  0.94 
pounds,  to  furnish  1000  calories. 

RELATIVE  ECONOMY  OF  THE  NUTRIENTS  OE  THE  BONELESS  MEAT 
OE  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS  AT  CURRENT  MARKET  PRICES 

From  the  discussion  of  the  distribution  of  the  various  nutrients 
in  the  eleven  wholesale  cuts  of  beef,  it  wras  seen  that  some  of  the 
cheaper  cuts,  such  as  the  round,  clod,  chuck,  and  shanks,  contained 
just  as  high  or  higher  percentages  of  protein,  organic  extractives, 
and  mineral  matter  as  the  more  expensive  cuts.  The  main  difference 
between  the  cuts  was  in  the  fat  content.  Since  meat  is  bought 
chiefly  for  the  protein  it  contains  and  secondarily  for  fat,  it  will 
be  of  interest  to  compare  the  net  cost  of  a  given  amount  of  protein 
from  each  cut,  and  also  the  cost  of  the  meat  from  each  cut  needed 
to  supply  a  definite  number  of  calories.  These  data  are  given  in 
Table  11. 


162 


BULLETIN  No.  158 


[July, 


TABLE  11. — COST  OF  MEAT  REQUIRED  TO  FURNISH  ONE  POUND  OF  PROTEIN  AND 
1000  CALORIES  FROM   WHOLESALE  CUTS  AT  MARKET  PRICES 


Wholesale  cuts 

Retail1 
price 
per 
pound, 
cents 

Boneless 
meat  in 
the  cut, 
percent 

Cost  of 
pound 
boneless 
meat  in 
cut, 
cents 

Cost  of 
pound 
protein 
in  cut, 
cents 

Cost  of 
1000 
calories 
in  cut, 
cents 

Fore  shank   

5 

59.56 

8.4 

50 

7 

Hind   shank    

5 

48.84 

10.2 

63 

9 

Neck     

6 

84.31 

7.1 

46 

5 

Flank    

8 

99.44 

8.0 

85 

3 

Plate    

8 

91.23 

8  7 

82 

4 

Clod    

30 

95   18 

10  5 

63 

10 

Chuck     

11 

87.99 

12  5 

84 

9 

Rump     

12 

79  85 

15  0 

119 

8 

Round     

15 

90  39 

16  6 

101 

15 

Rib     

18 

85  56 

21  0 

171 

11 

Loin     

22 

90  23 

24  4 

188 

14 

'Average  prices  calculated  from  the  retail  prices  given  in  Table  19,  page  171. 

The  calculations  are  based  upon  the  prices  given  in  the  first 
column.  From  the  percentage  of  boneless  meat,  the  retail  cost 
per  pound  of  the  boneless  meat  in  the  cuts  was  obtained.  Knowing 
the  percentage  of  protein  in  the  boneless  meat  (Table  7),  and  the 
percentage  of  boneless  meat  in  the  cut,  the  cost  per  pound  of 
protein  was  calculated.  The  cheapest  cuts  for  protein  are  the  neck, 
shanks  and  clod.  The  neck  furnishes  a  pound  of  protein  for  46 
cents;  the  fore  shank  for  50  cents;  the  hind  shank  for  63  cents, 
and  the  clod  for  63  cents.  The  loin,  rib,  rump,  and  round  furnish 
a  pound  of  protein  for  the  most  money:  the  loin  for  $1.88;  the 
rib  for  $1.71 ;  the  rump  for  $1.19,  and  the  round  for  $1.01.  The 
flank,  plate,  and  chuck  cuts  supply  a  pound  of  protein  for  85,  82, 
and  84  cents  respectively.  With  reference  to  the  cost  of  protein, 
the  most  economical  cuts  which  are  suitable  for  general  use  are  the 
clod,  plate,  and  chuck,  in  the  order  named. 

From  the  cost  per  pound  of  the  boneless  meat  and  from  the 
amount  of  boneless  meat  required  to  furnish  1000  calories  (Table 
10),  it  is  possible  to  determine  the  cost  of  the  meat  necessary  to 
supply  the  same  fuel  value  for  each  cut.  These  results  are  given 
in  the  last  column.  They  indicate  that  the  eleven  cuts  can  be 
grouped  into  four  classes :  first,  the  flank,  plate,  and  neck,  costing 
3,  4  and  5  cents,  respectively,  per  1000  calories;  second,  the  fore 
shank  and  the  rump,  costing  7  and  8  cents  respectively ;  third,  the 
hind  shank,  chuck,  clod  and  rib,  costing  9,  9,  10  and  n  cents 
respectively;  and  fourth,  the  loin  and  round,  costing  14  and  15 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  163 

cents  respectively.  Considering  their  adaptability  for  general  use, 
the  most  economical  cuts  in  terms  of  fuel  value  are  the  plate,  rump, 
chuck,  and  clod. 

It  will  be  of  interest  to  see  which  cuts  of  beef  are  the  most 
economical  for  protein  and  fuel  value  combined.  In  the  above 
discussion  the  relative  order  of  the  cuts  is  not  the  same  in  the  two 
cases.  The  neck,  shank,  and  plate  are  among  the  cheapest  cuts  in 
both  instances,  while  the  round,  rib,  and  loin  are  the  most  expen- 
sive. From  the  standpoint  of  both  protein  and  energy  value,  the 
most  economical  cuts  adapted  to  general  use  are  the  clod,  chuck, 
and  plate,  in  the  order  named. 

It  should  of  course  be  borne  in  mind  that  some  of  these  cheaper 
cuts  are  less  tender  and  therefore  more  difficult  to  prepare  for  use 
than  steaks  and  roasts.  Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  little  difference  between  the  various  cuts  as  to  their  per- 
centages of  organic  extractives  and  ash  (the  nutrients  which  assist 
in  giving  flavor  and  palatability  to  cooked  meat),  and  since  the 
digestibility1  of  protein  is  independent  of  the  kind  or  cut  of  meat 
and  of  the  method  of  cooking  (broiling,  roasting  or  boiling),  the 
cheaper  cuts,  in  general,  may  be  said  to  compare  favorably  with 
the  higher-priced  ones,  even  in  regard  to  flavor  and  palatability. 
Considering  the  further  fact  that  they  furnish  more  protein  and 
fuel  value  per  unit  of  meat,  these  cuts  are  evidently  more  economi- 
cal sources  of  food  nutrients. 

RETAIL  CUTS 

The  wholesale  cuts  (Fig.  3,  page  143)  were  further  divided  into 
the  various  retail  cuts  that  are  commonly  made  in  meat  markets. 
Fig.  12  represents  the  manner  of  cutting  and  the  location  of  the 
different  cuts.  The  weight  of  each,  taken  immediately  upon  cut- 
ting, is  recorded  in  the  appendix  (Tables  10-23).  The  outs  that 
required  trimming  to  remove  surplus  fat  and  bone  were  so.  trimmed 
in  accordance  with  meat-market  custom,  the  trimmings  and  the 
trimmed  cut  being  weighed  in  each  case  (Tables  24-38,  Appendix). 
Each  retail  cut  was  then  carefully  separated  by  means  of  boning 
knives  into  lean,-  visible  fat,  and  bone,  and  the  weight  of  each 
portion  recorded2  (Tables  24-32,  Appendix).  In  the  case  of 
trimmed  cuts  the  different  constituents  of  the  trimmings  were 
likewise  separated  and  weighed  (Tables  33-38,  Appendix). 


Bulletin  162,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  O.E.S.  (1903),  by  Grindley  and  Emmett; 
also  Bulletin  193  by  Grindley,  Mojonnier,  and  Porter  (1907). 

BIn  the  case  of  Steer  No.  1  the  weight  of  bone  in  each  cut  was  determined 
by  difference.  In  Nos.  2  and  3  the  bone  was  weighed  ^separately,  which  ac- 
counts for  the  slight  amounts  of  loss  and  error  recorded  in  those  instances  and 
in  the  general  averages. 


164 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July, 


H/ND    QUARTER 
f?OUND 

Rump 

1        Rump 

Pound:  rump  <S  shank    off. 
£.        Round  steak,  f/rjf  cut. 
3-/J  Round  steaks. 

14  Round  steak,  /cut  cut. 

15  KnuckJe  ^oup  bone 

16  Pot  roast 
Hind  shank. 

17. /8  3oup  bones 
19      Hock  soup  bom 


LOIN 
I 
£ 


Buff- end  sir/oin  steak. 

Wedge  -  bone    str/o/n  steak. 
J,4     Pound -bone  •• 

5,6    Double -bone 

7  Hrp  -bone 

8  Hip -bone.    Porterhouse  ^feak. 
9 -15  Regular 

/6- 18  Club  steak-s. 


t        Flank  steak 
£      Stew. 


R/B 


llttr  & 
9W&  ) 
-I>J)&  I 


QUARTER 


R/b  roast 


4 
CHUCK 

I        5tb  ff/o  roast. 

£-  9    Chuck 

10 -/J  Pot  roasts. 

14-      Clod 

15       Neck 
PLATE 


Navel 
4-    Rib  ends 

SHANK 

I        3tew. 

£         Knuck/e.  ^oup   hone. 

3-6'  Soup   bones. 


RETAIL  •  CUT5  •  OF-  BEEF 


FIG.  12.    METHOD  OK  CUTTING  THE  THREE  SIDES,  SHOWING  RETAIL.  CUTS. 


In  order  to  compare  the  various  retail  cuts  as  to  their  relative 
amounts  of  lean,  fat,  and  bone,  the  weights  of  these  constituents 
have  been  reduced  to  percentages ;  and  in  the  interest  of  brevity, 
average  percentages  of  the  respective  constituents  yielded  by  cor- 
responding cuts  from  the  three  sides  of  beef  are  made  the  basis  of 
the  following  summary  and  discussion.  Tables  12  to  18,  inclusive, 


K)i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


:6S 


represent  untrimmed  cuts.  Further  differences  brought  about  by 
trimming  will  be  briefly  summarized  in  connection  with  the  discus- 
sion of  the  various  cuts,  and  will  be  considered  more  specifically  in 
the  following  section  with  reference  to  the  question  of  relative 
economy. 

LOIN 

With  reference  to  the  proportions  of  lean  and  fat  in  the  cuts  of 
the  loin  (Table  12)  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  sirloin  steaks  are  in 
general  leaner  than  the  porterhouse  and  club  steaks,  and  that  all  of 
the  latter  are  comparatively  similar  in  this  respect.  The  percentage 
of  bone  varies  considerably;  and  it  is  apparent  that  the  double- 
bone,  hip-bone  and  club  steaks  have  relatively  more  bone  than  the 
remainder  of  the  loin,  owing  to  portions  of  the  hip-bone  contained 

TABLE  12. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  loin  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1.  Sirloin  steak   (butt-end)     

70.46 

93  39 

5  .  67 

99.45 

2.  Sirloin  steak   (wedge-bone)     

69.82 

23.27 

6.40 

99.49 

3.  Sirloin  steak   (round-bone)     

65.71 

28.17 

5.37 

99.25 

4.  Sirloin  steak   (round-bone)     

61.43 

29.18 

8.94 

99  .  55 

5.  Sirloin  steak   (double-bone)     

59.01 

26.55 

13.84 

99.40 

6    Sirloin  steak   (double-bone)1                   .    .• 

68  69 

17  72 

12  49 

98  90 

7.  Sirloin  steak  (hip-bone)2    

50.11 

31.73 

16  05 

97  89 

8.  Porterhouse  steak   (hip-bone)    
9.  Porterhouse    steak    •  

54.39 
53  78 

32.88 
39  22 

11.51 
5  80 

98.78 
98  80 

10.  Porterhouse    steak    

53   56 

39  24 

6  64 

99  44 

11.  Porterhouse   steak    
12.  Porterhouse    steak    

59.41 
56  22 

32  .  93 
35  96 

6.46 

6  84 

98.80 
99  02 

13.  Porterhouse    steak    

55  49 

35  41 

8  23 

99  13 

14.  Porterhouse   steak    
15.  Porterhouse   steak    

54.83 
50  04 

34.33 
41  44 

9.52 

7  77 

98.68 
99  25 

16.  Club    steak    
17.  Club    steak    
18.  Club    steak    
19.  Trimmings    (wholesale)3    

55.38 
55.33 
54.10 
9  79 

36.35 
32  93 
33.81 
90  21 

7.89 
12.80 
11.19 

o 

99.82 
99.06 
99.10 
100  00 

Entire    loin     

58  53 

31  75 

8  89 

99  17 

in  the  former  and  of  the  thirteenth  rib  in  the  latter.  It  is  evident 
from  these  figures  that  while  porterhouse  steaks  command  a  higher 
price  than  sirloin,  they  actually  contain  a  smaller  proportion  of  lean 
meat  and  more  excess  fat.  See  Figs.  13  to  28. 

Trimming  the  retail  cuts  of  the  loin  reduces  their  weight  about 
12  percent.  (Tables  33  and  34,  Appendix).  The  relative  amount 
of  trimmings  is  similar  in  the  three  classes  of  steaks;  but  those 

This  cut  was  made  from  the  loins  of  Steers  Nos.  1  and  2  only. 
This  cut  was  made  from  the  loins  of  Steers  Nos.  2  and  3  only. 
3This  cut  was  made  from  the  loin  of  Steer  No.  3  only. 


166 


BULLETIN  No.  158 


[July, 


from  the  porterhouse  cuts  contain  the  largest  proportion  of  fat, 
while  the  sirloin  trimmings  contain  the  most  bone.  The  trimmings 
from  the  various  loin  steaks  consist  of  about  80  percent  visible  fat, 
1 8  percent  bone,  and  2  percent  lean. 

RIB 

Table  13  shows  that  the  first  cut  of  the  rib  contains  the  smallest 
proportion  of  lean  meat,  while  the  last  cut,  or  sixth  rib  roast,  is 
the  leanest.  The  reverse  is  true  of  the  percentage  of  fat.  In  terms 
of  gross  meat,  i.e.,  lean  and  fat  combined,  the  first  roast  is  most 
valuable  and  the  third  cut  least ;  moreover,  the  greater  degree  of 
tenderness  and  general  quality  in  the  first  cut  makes  it  the  most 
popular  and  therefore  the  highest-priced  of  the  rib  roasts.  Since, 
however,  beef  roasts  are  valuable  primarily  for  the  lean  meat  they 
contain,  it  is  evident  that  the  sixth  rib  is  the  most  economical*  at 
a  given  price.  See  Figs.  29  to  32. 

TABLE  13. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  rib  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1    Roast  (nth  and  12th  ribs)  

49.44 

37  74 

12  41 

99  59 

2    Roast  (9th  and  10th  ribs)    

54.26 

31.41 

13  97 

99  64 

3    Roast  (7th  and  8th  ribs)  

56.00 

27  81 

15  79 

99  60 

4    Roast   (6th    rib)     

61.43 

23  72 

14  27 

99  42 

Entire    rib    

55.21 

30.17 

14.18 

99.56 

ROUND 

Comparing  the  retail  cuts  of  the  round  (Table  14)  it  is  found 
that  the  rump  roast  is  made  up  of  about  one-half  lean  and  one-third 
visible  fat;  the  round  steaks,  from  73  to  85  percent  lean  and  9  to 
22  percent  visible  fat ;  and  the  hind-shank  soup  bones  are  exceed- 
ingly variable  in  proportions  of  lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone.  The  var- 
ious steaks  are  somewhat  similar  in  percentage  of  lean  meat,  but 
cuts  Nos.  5  to  12  contain  noticeably  less  bone  and  more  visible  fat 
than  those  nearer  the  extremities  of  the  round.  The  round  pot  roast, 
which  is  usually  a  boneless  cut,  contains  a  larger  proportion  of 
lean  meat  than  any  other  cut  of  the  round.  The  knuckle  and  hock 
soup  bones  consist  very  largely  of  bone,  while  the  remaining  soup- 
bone  cuts  have  considerable  percentages  of  lean.  See  Figs.  33 
to  45. 

Results  of  trimming  the  various  round  cuts  are  shown  in  Tables 
35  and  36,  Appendix.  Rump  roasts  are  thus  reduced  in  weight  by 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  167 

TABLE  14. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  round  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

48.62 

31.13 

19.81 

99.57 

2    Round   steak    (first   cut)  

74.16 

13.57 

11.26 

98.99 

3    Round  steak              

76.99 

13.19 

9.02 

99.20 

4    Round  steak   .                

84.47 

9.71 

5.13 

99.31 

5    Round  steak                     

83.12 

12.94 

3.33 

99.39 

g    Round  steak                

81.84 

14.36 

2.64 

98.84 

7    Round  steak           

78.79 

17.63 

2.52 

98.94 

8    Round  steak       .            

77.53 

19.61 

2.62 

99.76 

9    Round  steak1          

81.85 

15.93 

2.22 

100.00 

10    Round  steak1    .           

78.15 

19.33 

2.52 

100.00 

11.  Round  steak1  

74.90 

21.96 

3.14 

100.00 

12    Round  steak     .  .         

73.73 

21.95 

3.77 

99.45 

13    Round  steak1  

81.02 

14.36 

4.62 

100.00 

14    Round  steak   ...         

75.05 

16.63 

7.31 

98.99 

15.  Knuckle    soup    bone  

19.00 

21.78 

58  .  36 

99.14 

16    Pot    roast    

85.43 

13  38 

0.87 

99  68 

17.  Shank   soup  bone  

40.13 

11.37 

47  62 

99   12 

18.  Shank  soup  bone   •        .... 

66  72 

12.35 

20.19 

99  46 

19.  Shank  soup  bone    (hock)  

8.08 

10.36 

80.86 

99.30 

Entire    round    

64  61 

18  03 

16  63 

99.27 

'This  cut  was  made  from  the  round  of  Steer  No.  1  only. 

about  one-third;  and  the  rump  trimmings  are  composed  of  about 
56  percent  bone,  30  percent  fat  and  14  percent  lean.  Fat  only  is 
trimmed  from  the  round  steaks,  as  a  rule,  and  they  are  reduced 
only  about  5  percent  in  weight.  The  greatest  proportionate  amount 
of  trimmings  is  taken  from  the  first  cut  steak,  in  which  case  the 
trimmings  consist  principally  of  bone ;  and,  in  general,  the  fifth 
to  the  eighth  cuts  are  trimmed  more  than  the  remaining  ones. 

CHUCK 

The  fifth  rib  roast,  taken  from  the  chuck  (Table  15),  resembles 
the  prime  rib  roast  in  regard  to  proportions  of  meat  and  bone,  but 
exceeds  them  in  relative  amount  of  lean,  just  as  the  adjacent  sixth 
rib  roast  shows  the  largest  percentage  of  lean  in  the  prime  ribs 
(Table  13).  It  is  also  observed  that  the  successive  chuck  steaks, 
which  are  cut  anterior  and  parallel  to  the  fifth  rib  roast,  tend  in 
general  toward  a  larger  proportion  of  lean  meat  with  a  smaller  per- 
centage of  fat  and  bone.  Three  pot  roasts,  cuts  Nos.  10,  n,  and 
12,  cut  next  to  the  chuck  steaks,  vary  considerably  with  respect 
to  all  three  constituents,  Nos.  10  and  12  resembling  the  chuck 
steaks,  while  No.  1 1  has  a  comparatively  small  percentage  of  lean 
and  a  large  percentage  of  fat.  The  stew  (No.  13),  taken  from  the 
lower  portion  of  the  shoulder  near  the  brisket,  is  the  fattest  cut  of 


168  BULLETIN  No.  158  [July, 

TABLE  15. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  chuck  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1.  Roast    (5th   rib)  

64.07 

20.78 

14.65 

99.50 

2    Chuck   steak                   -  .  . 

62  11 

18  80 

18.33 

99.24 

3    Chuck   steak            

66  26 

22  29 

10  94 

99.49 

4    Chuck   steak        

72  41 

15  81 

11  37 

99.29 

5.  Chuck   steak    

69.91 

16.60 

12.50 

99.01 

6.  Chuck   steak    

75.64 

14  .  23 

9.68 

99.55 

7    Chuck  steak      

82.10 

6.41 

10.78 

99.29 

8    Chuck   steak      

75  .  60 

13.60 

10.28 

99.48 

9.  Chuck  steak   

74  .  76 

14.57 

9.85 

99.18 

10    Pot    roast      

75  .  89 

14  44 

8  89 

99  .  22 

11    Pot    roast    

58.45 

26.53 

13  94 

98  9? 

12    Pot    roast    

78.06 

9  07 

12.66 

99.79 

13    Stew 

60  79 

33  86 

5  03 

99  68 

14    Clod 

80  39 

14  62 

4  69 

99  70 

15.  Neck     

60.47 

22.12 

16.48 

99.07 

Entire  chuck    

69.47 

18.63 

11.26 

99.36 

the  chuck,  and  contains  but  little  bone.  The  neck  piece  is  inter- 
mediate in  proportionate  amounts  of  edible  meat  and  waste.  The 
clod  is  the  most  economical  cut  of  the  chuck  in  point  of  gross  meat, 
and,  with  one  exception,  also  contains  the  highest  percentage  of 
lean.  See  Figs.  46  to  60. 

Retail  trimmings  from  the  chuck  (Tables  37  and  38,  Appendix) 
consist  chiefly  of  neck  scraps,  these  making  up  nearly  half  the  total 
trimmings  taken  from  the  chuck  of  Steer  No.  i  and  about  one- 
third  in  the  case  of  Steer  No.  2.  The  chuck  roast  and  steaks  are 
trimmed  to  about  the  same  extent  as  the  round  steaks,  amounting 
to  5  percent  of  their  weight;  the  trimmings  consisting  largely  of 
bone.  Of  the  remaining  cuts  only  No.  n  (the  pot  roast  adjacent 
to  the  clod  and  knuckle)  requires  much  trimming,  the  surplus  in 
this  case  being  chiefly  fat  and  bone.  On  the  average  the  chuck 
'cuts  are  reduced  in  weight  by  about  10  percent,  and  the  trimmings 
are  composed  of  about  40  percent  fat,  30  percent  lean  and  30  per- 
cent bone. 


The  two  principal  divisions  of  the  plate,  viz.,  the  brisket  and 
the  navel,  are  remarkably  similar  in  proportions  of  lean,  visible  fat, 
and  bone  (Table  16).  The  rib  ends,  which  are  small  pieces  cut 
from  the  upper  portion  of  the  navel,  contain  relatively  more  bone 
and  less  lean  than  the  remainder  of  the  plate,  but  are  similar  to  it 
in  percentage  of  visible  fat.  The  wholesale  trimmings  consist  chiefly 
of  surplus  fat  taken  from  the  lower  edge  of  the  plate.  See  Figs. 
61  to  64. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  169 

TABLE  16. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  plate  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1    Brisket    

53.33 

38.81 

7.78 

99  92 

2    Navel    

54.87 

37.22 

7.91 

100  00 

3.  Rib   ends          

49.44 

37.31 

12  35 

99  10 

4.  Rib   ends    

50.79 

36.39 

12.36 

99.54 

5.  Wholesale   trimmings    

13.89 

86.11 

0 

100  .  00 

Entire  plate   

50.61 

40.73 

8.47 

99.81 

FLANK 

About  half  the  weight  of  the  flank  cut  from  prime  cattle  consists 
of  surplus  fat  which  must  be  trimmed  off  and  sold  for  tallow 
(Table  20,  Appendix).  A  boneless  steak  is  then  stripped  off, 
which,  in  this  test,  consisted  of  about  83  percent  lean  and  the 
remainder,  visible  fat.  The  rest  of  the  flank  (cut  No.  i)  is  stew- 
ing meat  containing  about  two  parts  of  lean  to  one  of  visible  fat. 
See  Figs.  65  and  66. 

TABLE  17.— PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  flank  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1    Stew    

64.11 

34  79 

58 

99  48 

2    Flank    steak    

83  05 

16  44 

0 

99  49 

3    Trimmings    (wholesale)    

37 

99  63 

0 

100  00 

Entire    flank    

36  30 

63  18 

0  25 

99  73 

FORE  SHANK 

The  boneless  stewing  piece  taken  from  the  front  of  the  shank 
(cut  No.  i )  contains  a  larger  proportion  of  both  lean  and  fat  than 
the  shank  soup-bone  cuts.  Of  the  latter,  it  is  seen  in  Table  18  that 

TABLE  18. — PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,  AND  BONE  IN  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 


Retail  fore-shank  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

99.68 
99.18 
99.24 
99.62 
99.72 
98.88 

1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 

Stew 
Soup 
Soup 
Soup 
Soup 
Soup 

82 
29 
28 
39 
68 
17 

58 
38 
03 
88 
88 
43 

17 
11 
10 
13 
5 
6 

11 

10 
12 
98 
14 
68 
51 

63 

0 

58 
60 
46 
25 

74 

68 
23 
61 
16 
94 

bone    (knuckle)    

bone      

bone    

bone          .  .          

bone    

Entire   si 

lank          

47 

61 

40 

20 

99 

44 

170  BULLETIN  No.  158  [July, 

the  two  cuts  nearest  the  chuck  (Nos.  2  and  3)  are  very  similar, 
containing  small  proportions  of  lean  and  much  bone.  In  the  next 
two  cuts  the  percentage  of  lean  increases  and  that  of  bone  decreases. 
The  fifth  cut  contains  a  remarkably  large  percentage  of  lean  and 
of  gross  meat,  while  the  sixth  cut,  containing  about  75  percent  of 
bone,  has  the  smallest  relative  amount  of  meat.  See  Figs.  67  to  69. 

RELATIVE  ECONOMY  OE  THE  VARIOUS  RETAIL  CUTS 

From  the  proportions  of  lean,  fat  and  bone  in  the  different 
cuts,  their  relative  economy  at  retail  market  prices  may  be  deter- 
mined. The  net  cost  of  lean  meat  is  an  approximate  index  of  the 
relative  economy  of  steaks  and  roasts,  since  they  are  purchased  and 
used  primarily  for  the  lean  they  contain ;  but  in  comparing  boiling, 
stewing,  and  similar  meats,  the  cost  of  gross  meat,  or  fat  and  lean 
combined,  should  be  more  largely  considered,  because  the  fat  is 
more  completely  utilized,  as  in  the  case  of  meat  loaf,  hash,  Ham- 
burger and  corned  beef.  Soup  bones,  being  valued  for  flavoring 
matter  as  well  as  for  the  nutritive  substance  they  contain,  are  more 
difficult  to  compare  with  other  cuts  in  respect  to  relative  economy. 
They  vary  materially,  however,  in  proportions  of  edible  meat  and 
waste,  and  should  therefore  be  studied  in  this  connection. 

The  relative  cost  of  lean  meat  in  a  given  cut  consists  of  the 
price  per  pound  paid  for  the  cut  divided  by  the  percentage  of  lean 
it  contains ;  and,  similarly,  the  cost  per  pound  of  gross  meat  is  the 
market  price  of  the  cut  divided  by  its  total  percentage  of  lean  and 
fat  meat.  For  example,  in  a  steak  costing  20  cents  per  pound  and 
composed  of  80  percent  lean,  10  percent  visible  fat  and  10  percent 
bone,  the  net  cost  per  pound  of  lean  is  20  cents  -4-  .80,  or  25  cents, 
and  the  net  cost  per  pound  of  total  meat  is  20  cents  -r- . 90 
(.80+. 10),  or  22.2  cents. 

Retail  prices  of  beef  cuts  vary  widely,  depending  upon  market 
prices  of  live  cattle  and  carcass  beef;  also  upon  the  method  of 
cutting  and  trimming  used,  and  upon  local  customs  and  conditions. 
Consequently,  the  relative  economy  of  the  different  cuts  varies 
accordingly  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  expressed  in  fixed  terms 
The  following  table  is  based  upon  prices  charged  for  the  highest 
grade  of  beef  cuts  in  first-class  city  meat  markets.  Altho  it  fairly 
represents  the  relative  net  cost  of  the  retail  cuts  under  the  condi- 
tions stated,  the  table  is  designed  primarily  to  illustrate  the  method 
by  which  the  relative  economy  of  different  cuts  may  be  calculated 
for  any  given  scale  of  prices. 

Table  19  is  based  upon  Tables  13,  16,  17  and  18  of  the  text, 
and,  in  the  case  of  cuts  that  were  trimmed,  Tables  26,  29  and  32, 
Appendix.  In  case  it  is  desired  to  compare  the  untrimmed  cuts, 


i')i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


171 


then  Tables  12  to  18  inclusive  in  the  foregoing  text  should  be  used 
as  the  basis,  and  prices  assigned  accordingly. 

TABLE  19. — COST  OF  LEAN  AND  OF  TOTAL  MEAT  IN  THE  VARIOUS  RETAIL  CUTS 

AT  MARKET  PRICES 


RETAIL  CUTS 

Diagram 
number 
.Fig.  12) 

Retail 
price 
per   pounc 
of  cut, 
cents 

Cost  per 
pound  of 
lean  meal 
in  cut, 
cents 

Cost  per 
pound  of 
lean  and 
fat  meat 
in  cut, 
cents 

STEAKS 
Porterhouse,  hip-bone    

8 

25 

38  6 

28  9 

Porterhouse,  Jfcgular.    

10 

25 

40  2 

27  2 

rlllK         Cffrlk    jiff:      

18 

20 

32  1 

22  6 

Sirloin,    bui^Rid  

1 

20 

25  3 

20  6 

Sirloin,    n^HB-bone    

3 

20 

28  3 

21  1 

Sirloin,  ^Mole-bone    

5 

20 

28  7 

22  7 

Sirloin,  ^HP-bone    

7 

20 

32  3 

24  2 

1 

16 

19  3 

16  0 

Rniinjj^Krcf    ^nt 

2 

15 

17  0 

15  3 

Rouj^^middle  cut    

6 

15 

17  3 

15  6 

Pnnj^p    1a=t   nit 

14 

15 

19  3 

16  0 

Chuck,   first   cut  

2 

12 

18  3 

14  1 

Chuck,   last  cut    

9 

12 

15  7 

13  1 

ROASTS 
Prime   ribs,    first   cut  

1 

20 

40  5 

22  9 

Prime  ribs,  last  cut  

4 

16 

26  1 

18  8 

Chuck,   5th  rib    

1 

15 

22  8 

17  3 

Rump     

1 

12 

19  4 

12  8 

BOILING  AND  STEWING  PIECES 
Round  pot  roast    

16 

10 

11  6 

10  1 

Shoulder    clod    

14 

10 

12  3 

10  5 

Shoulder  pot  roast    

11 

10 

14  3 

11  6 

Rib    ends    

3 

8 

16  2 

q  o 

Brisket    

1 

8 

15  0 

8   7 

Navel    

2 

7 

12  8 

7   7 

Flank   stew    

2 

7 

10  9 

7   1 

Fore  shank  stew   

1 

7 

8   5 

7  0 

Neck  

15 

g 

0     K. 

7n 

SOUP  BONES 
Round,  knuckle    ... 

2 

5 

26  3 

19   ^ 

Hind  shank,  middle  cut.  .  .  . 
Hind   shank,   hock  

18 
19 

5 

5 

7.5 
69   5 

6.3 
p«   R 

Fore    shank,    knuckle  

2 

5 

17  2 

-Ip     K 

Fore  shank,   middle   cut  
Fore  shank,   end    

4 
6 

5 
5 

12.5 

28  8 

9.4 
pfl   q 

Taking  the  net  cost  of  the  lean  meat  as  a  basis  of  comparison,  we 
learn  from  these  data  that  the  most  expensive  steaks  at  the  prices 
given  are  the  porterhouse  cuts,  followed  by  the  club,  sirloin,  flank, 
round,  and  chuck  steaks.  Of  the  different  roasts,  the  first-cut  prime 
ribs  are  the  most  costly  in  terms  of  lean  meat,  and  the  rump  roast  is 
the  most  economical.  The  various  boiling  and  stewing  pieces  furnish 


172  BULLETIN  No.  158  [July, 

lean  meat  more  economically  at  market  prices  than  either  the  roasts 
or  steaks;  the  rib  ends  and  brisket  being  the  dearer  cuts  of  this 
class,  while  the  neck  and  shank  stews  are  relatively  cheapest.  Sev- 
eral of  the  soup  bones  are  very  economical  sources  of  lean  meat, 
particularly  the  middle  cuts  of  both  shanks;  and  only  one  of  them 
is  extremely  expensive,  even  on  this  basis.  In  general,  the  wide 
variation  between  the  various  cuts  in  net  cost  of  lean  is  remarkable, 
ranging  from  7.5  cents  in  one  of  the  soup  bones  to  40.5  cents  in  a 
prime  rib  roast,  and  up  to  62.5  cents  in  the  hock  soup  bone;  the 
latter,  however,  being  used  primarily  for  its  flavoring  substance 
rather  than  for  lean  meat.  It  will  be  observed,  also,  that  the  market 
prices  of  the  cheaper  cuts  correspond  much  more  closely  to  their 
net  cost  of  lean  meat  than  is  true  of  the  higher-priced  steaks  and 
roasts. 

The  net  cost  per  pound  of  gross  meat,  or  lean  and  fat  combined, 
varies  much  less  as  between  the  different  cuts  than  does  the  net 
cost  per  pound  of  lean,  because  the  proportions  of  total  meat  are 
more  nearly  uniform  than  the  percentages  of  lean.  The  various 
steaks  and  roasts  rank  in  substantially  the  same  order  as  to  relative 
economy  on  this  basis  as  on  the  basis  of  lean  meat.  The  rib  roasts, 
however,  are  considerably  more  economical  as  compared  with  the 
porterhouse  and  sirloin  steaks  when  all  the  edible  meat  is  consid- 
ered. The  rump  shows  a  very  low  cost  per  pound  of  edible  meat, 
due  to  the  large  proportion  of  fat  it  contains ;  and  a  still  further 
difference  is  noticed  in  the  case  of  the  rib  ends,  brisket,  navel, 
flank,  neck,  and  several  of  the  soup-bone  cuts.  The  stewing  meats 
are  generally  the  most  economical  sources  of  edible  meat  at  these 
prices,  while  porterhouse  steaks  are  the  most  expensive. 

On  the  whole,  the  data  clearly  show  that  the  cheaper  cuts  of 
beef  are  by  far  the  most  economical  sources  both  of  lean  and  of 
total  edible  meat,  including  fat  and  lean.  It  has  been  shown  else- 
where (page  156)  that  no  correlation  exists  between  market  prices 
and  the  proportion  of  flavoring  substances  contained  in  various 
portions  of  the  carcass ;  and  cooking  tests  indicate  that  the  propor- 
tion of  waste  and  shrinkage  is  not  necessarily  greater  in  the  cheaper 
than  in  the  more  expensive  cuts.1  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
retail  prices  of  beef  cuts  are  determined  chiefly  by  considerations 
other  than  their  food  value,  such  as  tenderness,  grain,  color,  gen- 
eral appearance,  and  convenience  of  cooking'. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  Table  19  constitutes  a  striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  irrational  standards  which  characterize  the  demand  for 
beef,  and  of  the  consequent  wide  variation  in  prices  between  retail 
beef  cuts  from  different  portions  of  the  carcass.  A  careful  study 

'Bulletin  162,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  O.E.S.   (1903),  by  Grindley  and  Emmett. 


/?/.?]         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  173 

of  these  data,  together  with  Fig.  12  and  the  following  photographs 
of  all  the  cuts  from  Steer  Xo.  3,  will  enable  the  reader  to  purchase 
the  various  retail  cuts  of  choice  beef  with  respect  to  the  relative 
amounts  of  edible  meat  and  waste  they  contain,  and  thus  to  profit 
by  the  prevailing  discrepancies  in  market  prices. 

CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The  relative  efficiency  of  different  types  of  cattle  or  systems 
of  production  cannot  be  accurately  compared  without  considering 
the  adaptability  of  the  beef  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  used. 

2.  .Those  who  would  buy  meats  most  intelligently  must  know 
the  nature  of  the  different  cuts,  especially  with  reference  to  the 
proportions  of  lean  meat,  fat,  and  bone  they  contain  and  the  food 
value  of  edible  meat  cut  from  different  parts  of  the  carcass. 

3.  It  is  highly  essential  to  the  entire  beef-cattle  industry,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  economic  welfare  of  the  beef-eating  public, 
on  the  other,  that  a  more  intelligent  understanding  of  the  different 
cuts  of  meat  be  acquired  by  consumers  generally. 

SLAUGHTER  TESTS 

4.  Dressed  Beef.— The  proportion  of  chilled  dressed  beef  to 
live  weight  yielded  by  the  two  choice  steers  used  in  these  investi- 
gations was  60.36  and  60.88  percent  respectively,  and  that  of  the 
prime  steer  was  63.97  percent.  Page  140 

5.  Internal  Fat. — The  killing  fats  yielded  by  the  three  steers 
were  5.15,  5-97,  and  4.71  percent  respectively  (live  weight  basis). 
Notwithstanding  the  high  condition  of  Steer  No.   3,  this  animal 
yielded  the  lowest  percentage  of  internal  fat,  indicating  marked 
efficiency  for  beef  production.  Page  140 

6.  Hides. — The   yields   of   hides   were   7.48,   6.51,   and   6.43 
percent  respectively  (live  weight  basis).  Page  140 

7.  Offal. — Steer  No.  i  yielded  the  largest  proportion  of  head, 
feet,  tail,  tongue,  heart,  liver,  lungs,  trachea,  paunch,  intestines, 
and  spleen.     Steer  No.  3  had  the  smallest  relative  weight  of  offal. 

Page  140 
WHOLESALE  CUTS 

8.  Percent    Yield. — Average    yiel  Is    of    straight    cuts    were: 
loins,   16.76  percent;    ribs,  9.77;    rounds,  21.78;    chucks,   21.89; 
plates,   15.63;    flanks,  5.15;    fore  shanks,  4.97;    and  kidney  suet, 
4.06.  Page  142 

6.  Lean,  Fat,  and  Bone. — The  proportion  of  lean  in  the  vari- 
ous straight  wholesale  cuts  varied  from  about  one-third  in  the 
flank  to  about  two-thirds  in  the  chuck ;  the  extreme  percentages  of 
visible  fat  were  1 1  percent  in  the  shank  and  63  percent  in  the 


174  BULLETIN   No.   158  [July, 

flank ;  and  the  percentage  of  bone  ranged  from  practically  nothing 
in  the  flank  to  40  percent  in  the  shank.  In  general,  the  cuts  con- 
taining a  large  percentage  of  lean  had  a  small  percentage  of  visible 
fat,  and  vice  versa,  while  the  relative  weight  of  bone  was  more 
variable.  Page  145 

The  relative  amounts  of  lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone  in  the  hind 
and  fore  quarters  were  as  follows :  hind  quarter,  54.42  percent 
lean,  34.55  percent  visible  fat,  and  10.71  percent  bone;  fore  quar- 
ter, 59.12  percent  lean,  26.69  percent  visible  fat,  and  13.73  percent 
bone.  Page  145 

The  three  sides  of  beef  used  in  this  experiment  averaged  about 
57  percent  lean  meat,  30  percent  visible  fat,  and  12  percent  bone. 

Page  145 

7.  Relative  Economy. — The  net  cost  per  pound  of  lean  meat 
is,  in  general,  greatest    in  the  cuts    which    command  the  highest 
prices,  and  vice  versa.     Further,  the  more  expensive  the  cut,  the 
greater  the  cost  per  pound  of  visible  fat  and  lean  combined.     Thus 
the  relative  food  values  of  the  various  cuts  do  not  correspond  to 
their  market  prices,  the  cheaper  cuts  being  by  far  the  more  econom- 
ical sources  both  of  lean  and  of  total  edible  meat.  Page  147 

NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  THE   BONELESS  MEAT   OE  THE  VARIOUS 

WHOLESALE  CUTS 

8.  Dry  Substance. — The  average  water  content  of  the  edible 
meat  of  the  wholesale  cuts  varied  from  32  percent  in  the  flank  to 
63  percent  in  the  clod;  and  consequently  the  total  dry  substance 
ranged  from  37  percent  in  the  clod  to  68  percent  in  the  flank.    The 
percentage  of  soluble  dry  substance  varied  inversely  as  that  of  total 
dry  substance  in  the  various  cuts.  Page   150 

9.  Fat. — In  general,  the  various  wholesale  cuts  stood  in  the 
same  order  with  respect  to  the  percentages  of  both  total  fat  and 
total  dry  substance  contained  in  the  edible  meat;   in  other  words, 
the  higher  the  percentage  of  fat,  the  lower  the  percentage  of  water. 
The  total  fat  content  varied  from  18  percent  in  the  clod  to  57  per- 
cent in  the  flank.  Page   151 

10.  Protein. — Protein,  the  most  essential  food  constituent  of 
beef,  varied  in  the  different  cuts  inversely  as  the  dry  substance  and 
fat.     The  maximum  percentage,  16.98,  was  found  in  the  shank; 
and  the  minimum,  9.44,  in  the  flank.     Soluble  protein  varied  from 
0.66  to  2.08  percent,  and  was,   in  general,  proportional  to  total 
protein  in  the  different  cuts.    If  calculated  to  the  fat-free  basis,  the 
eleven  wholesale  cuts  correspond  closely  in  percentages  of  protein, 
ranging  only  from  20  to  22  percent.  Page  152 

11.  Organic  Extractives. — These  varied  from  0.76  percent  in 
the  flank  to  2.06  percent  in  the  round.     The  ratio  of  nitrogenous 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  175 

to  non-nitrogenous  extractives  in  the  various  cuts  was  similar.  A 
rather  close  correlation  existed  between  the  relative  amounts  of 
protein  and  those  of  organic  extractives,  indicating  that  the  leaner 
cuts  contained  larger  proportions  of  organic  extractives  than  did 
those  rich  in  fat.  No  relation  seemed  to  exist  between  the  market 
prices  and  the  flavoring  constituents  of  the  various  cuts.  The  high- 
priced  cuts  (the  loin  and  rib)  contained  considerably  smaller  per- 
centages of  organic  extractives  than  did  several  of  the  cheaper  cuts. 
These  statements  do  not  take  into  account  the  influence  of  marb- 
ling upon  flavor  of  the  different  cuts.  Page  155 

12.  Ash. — The   percentage  of  ash   varied   from  0.40  in  the 
flank  to  0.87  in  the  round.  The  soluble  ash  formed  from  70  to  87 
percent  of  the  total.     There  was  a  tendency  for  both  the  soluble 
and  the  total  ash  to  be  higher  in  the  cheaper  cuts,  and  since  these, 
especially  the  soluble  form,  contribute  to  the  palatability  of  meat, 
there  would  seem  to  be  no  relation  between  market  prices  and  the 
palatability  of  different  cuts.  Page  157 

13.  Phosphorus. — Phosphorus,  like  total  mineral  matter,  was 
most  abundant  in  the  leaner  cuts  of  beef,  and  vice  versa,  and  its 
relative   amounts  were  therefore  independent  of   current  market 
prices  of  the  various  cuts.     The  percentage  of  phosphorus  in  the 
meat  varied  from  0.077  ni  tne  flar|k  to  0.184  m  the  round. 

Page   158 

14.  Fuel  Value. — The  relative  fuel  value  is  a  significant  factor 
in  considering  the  nutritive  value  of  meat.     It  depends  primarily 
on  the  fat  content,  the  fatter  cuts  of  meat  being  highest  in  fuel 
value.     One  hundred  grams  of  meat  from  the  flank  furnished  the 
maximum  calories,  554.9,  and  one  hundred  grams  from  the  clod 
furnished  the  minimum  number,   235.1.     It  required   from  0.40 
pound  of  boneless  meat  in  the  flank  to  0.94  pouna  in  the  clod  to 
furnish  1000  calories.  Page   159 

15.  Relative  Economy. — There  seems  to  be  no  relation  be- 
tween market  prices  and  the  percentages  of  fat,  protein,  extractives, 
and  ash.     The  cheaper  cuts  appear  to  be  as  valuable  and  in  some 
cases  actually  more  so  than  the  higher -priced  cuts  from  the  stand- 
point of  protein  and  of  energy.    These  statements  do  not  take  into 
account  the  factors  of  tenderness  nor  the  influence  the  degree  of 
fatness  may  have  upon  the  palatability  of  cooked  meat.  In  purchas- 
ing meat  for  protein  primarily,  the  neck,  shanks  and  clod  are  the 
most  economical  cuts;    the  plate,  chuck,  flank  and  round  follow; 
with  the  rump,  rib,  and  loin  as  the  most  expensive.     From    the 
standpoint  of  fuel  value,  the  flank,  plate,  neck,  and  shank  cuts  are 
the  cheapest,  while  the  rib,  loin,  and  round  are  the  most  expensive. 
Considering  both  factors,  protein  and  fuel  value,  and  along    with 


176  BULLETIN    No.    158 

these  the  adaptability  of  the  meat  for  general  use  the  clod,  chuck, 
and  plate  are  the  most  economical  cuts  at  the  retail  prices  given. 

Page  161 

RETAIL  CUTS 

1 6.  Loin  Cuts. — Loin  steaks  averaged   59    percent    lean,    32 
percent  visible  fat,  and  9  percent  bone.     Sirloin  steaks  in  general 
contained  a  greater  proportion  of  lean  and  smaller  proportion  of 
fat  than  porterhouse  and  club  steaks.  Page   165 

17.  Rib  Cuts. — Rib  roasts  contained,  on  the  average,  55  per- 
cent lean,  30  percent  visible  fat,  and  15  percent  bone.     The  great- 
est percentage  .of  lean  was  found  in  the  sixth  rib  roast,  and  the 
smallest  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  rib  cut.  Page   166 

1 8.  Round  Cuts. — The  various  cuts  made   from    the    round 
averaged  65  percent  lean,   18  percent  visible  fat,  and   17  percent 
bone.     Round  steaks  contained  74  to  84  percent  lean;  the  rump 
roast,  49  percent;  round  pot  roast,  85  percent;  and  soup  bones, 
8  to  66  percent.     The  maximum  percentage  of  fat  was  found  in 
the  rump  roast,  and  the  maximum  percentage  of  bone,  in  the  hock 
soup  bone.  Page   166 

19.  Chuck  Cuts. — These  contained  an  average  of  69  percent 
lean,   19  percent  fat,  and  n  percent  bone.     Chuck  steaks  varied 
from  62  to  82  percent  lean,  and  from  6  to  22  percent  fat.     The 
shoulder  clod  contained  80  percent  lean  and  only  5  percent  bone. 
Relatively  more  lean  and  less  fat  were   found  in  the  chuck    rib 
roast  than  in  those  cut  from  the  prime  rib.  Page  167 

20.  Plate  Cuts. — The  brisket,  navel,  and  rib  ends  averaged  51 
percent  lean,  41  percent  fat,  and  8  percent  bone.     The  brisket  and 
navel  were  similar  in  proportions  of  the  different  constituents,  but 
the  rib  ends  were  slightly  higher  in  percentage  of  bone  and  lower 
in  lean.  Page   168 

21.  Flank  Cuts. — The  flank  steak  contained  83   percent  lean 
and  16  percent  fat;    and  the  flank  stew,  64  percent  lean  and  35 
percent  fat.  Page   169 

22.  Fore  Shank  Cuts. — Soup  bones  from  the  fore  shank  varied 
from  17  to  69  percent  lean,  and  from  25  to  75  percent  bone.     The 
boneless  shank  stew  contained  83  percent  lean  and  17  percent  vis- 
ible fat.  Page   160, 

23.  Retail  Trimmings.— Trimming  the    loin    steaks    reduced 
their  weight  12  percent,  and  the  trimmings  were  about  four-fifths 
fat  and  one-fifth  bone.     Round  and  chuck  steaks  were  reduced  but 
5  percent  in  weight  by  trimming,  only  fat  being  taken  from   the 
former,  as  a  rule,  and  principally  bone   from  the  latter.     Other 
cuts  that  were  materially  affected  by  cutting  off  surplus  fat    and 
bone  were  the  rump,  shoulder  pot  roast,  and  neck.     Pages  165-168 


/p/.?]         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  177 

24.  Relative  Economy. — Of  the  various  steaks,  the  porterhouse 
cuts  were  highest  in  net  cost  of  edible  meat,  and  chuck  steaks  lowest. 
Of  the  roasts,  the  first  cut  of  the  prime  ribs  was  relatively  dearest 
and  the  rump  cheapest.  The  most  expensive  boiling  and  stewing 
cuts,  in  terms  of  edible  meat,  were  the  shoulder  pot  roast  and  clod, 
while  the  rib  ends  and  brisket  cost  the  most  with  respect  to  lean 
meat  alone,  and  the  shank  stew  and  neck  were  most  economical, 
either  as  source  of  lean  or  of  total  meat.  Soup  bones  were  exceed- 
ingly variable  in  relative  economy,  the  middle  cuts  from  the  shanks 
being  relatively  cheapest,  and  the  hock  and  end  of  the  fore  shank 
most  expensive.  Page  170 

In  general,  the  low-priced  cuts  were  by  far  the  most  economical 
sources  both  of  lean  and  of  total  edible  meat.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  market  prices  of  the  various  retail  cuts  of  beef  are 
determined  chiefly  by  considerations  other  than  their  relative  food 
values.  Page  172 

In  the  preparation  of  samples  and  in  the  analytical  work  of 
this  investigation,  valuable  assistance  was  rendered  by  P.  F.  Trow- 
bridge,  Elizabeth  C.  Sprague,  L.  F.  Shackell  and  ].  M.  Barrihart. 


PHOTOGRAPHS  OF  THE  RETAIL  CUTS 

The  following  figures,  Nos.  13  to  69,  are  photographs  of  all  the 
retail  cuts  of  steer  No.  3.  As  previously  stated,  this  was  the  fat- 
test of  the  three  steers  and  was  not  only  highly  finished,  but  some- 
what over-done.  Consequently  the  illustrations  do  not  represent 
ideal  cuts  of  beef,  but  show  a  larger  proportion  of  fat  than  usually 
is  desirable.  The  photographs  were  taken  before  trimming.  For 
the  amount  and  nature  of  the  trimmings  from  each  cut  see  Tables 
33  to  38,  Appendix.  The  numbers  of  the  retail  cuts  refer  to  those 
indicated  in  Fig.  12,  page  164.  The  instances  in  which  these  num- 
bers are  not  consecutive  are  due  to  slight  differences  in  thickness 
of  the  cuts.  Below  is  shown  the  order  of  the  photographs. 

Fig-.  No. 

Loin    steaks 13  to  28 

Rib    roasts    29  to  32 

Rump   roast    33 

Round  steaks   34  to  42 

Round  pot  roast  and  soup   bones 43  to  45 

Chuck    rib    roast 4-6 

Chuck    steaks     47  to  54 

Chuck  pot   roasts   and  stews 55  to  60 

Plate  cuts :    brisket,  navel  and  rib  ends 61  to  64 

Flank   steak   and   stew 65  to  G6 

Fore  shank  stew  and  soup  bones 67  to  69 


178 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


Fig-.  13.     Butt-end  sirloin  steak.     L,oin  Cut  No.  1. 


Fig.  14.     Wedge-bone  sirloin  steak.     lyoiii  cut  No.  2. 


Fig.  15.     Round- bon    sirloin  steak.     L/oin  cut  No.  3. 


if>i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  179 


Fig.  16.     Round-bone  sirloin  steak.     Loin  cut  No.  4. 


Fig.  17.     Double-bone  sirloin  steak.     Loin  cut  No.  5. 


Fig.  18.     Hip-bone  sirloin  steak.     Loin  cut  No.  7. 


180 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


Fig.  19.     Hip-bone  porterhouse  steak.     L<oin  cut  No.  8. 


Fig..  20.     Regular  p  rterhouse  steak.     L<oiu  cut  No.  9. 


Fig.  21.     Regular  porterhouse  steak.     Loin  cut  No.  10. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  181 


Fig-.  22.     Regular  porterhouse  steak.     L/oin  cut  No.  12. 


Fig.  23.     Regular  porterhouse  steak.     L/oin  cut  No.  13. 


Fig.  24.     Regular  porterhouse  steak.     L,oin  cut  No.  14. 


182 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July. 


Fig.  25.     Regular  porterhouse  steak.     Loin  cut  No.  15. 


Fig.  26.     Club  steak.     L,oin  cut  No.  16. 


Fig.  27.     Club  steak.     Loin  cut  No.  17. 


1912}        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  183 


Fig.  28.     Club  steak.     lyoin  cut  No.  18. 


Fig-.  29.     llth  and  12th  rib  roast.     Rib  cut  No.  1. 


Fig.  30.     9th  and  10th  rib  roast.     Rib  cut  No.  2. 


184 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


Fig.  31.     7th  and  8th  rib  roast.     Rib  cut  No.  3. 


Fig.  32.     6th  rib  ro'dst.     Kit?  cut  No.  4. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  185 


Fig.  33.     Rump  roast.     Round  cut  No.  1. 


Fig.  34.     Round  Steak.     Round  cut  No.  2. 


186 


BULLETIN  No.  158 


[July, 


Fig.  35.     Round  steak.     Round  cut  No.  3. 


Fig.  36.     Round  steak.     Round  cut  No.  4. 


i2\         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  187 


Fig.  37.     Round  steak.     Round  cut  No.  5. 


Fig.  38.     Round  steak.     Round  cut  No.  6. 


188 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July, 


Fig.  39.     Round  Steak.     Round  cut  No.  7. 


Fig.  40.     Round  steak.     Round  cut  No.  8. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  189 


Fig.  41.     Round  steak.     Kound  cut  No.  12. 


Fig.  42.     Round  steak.     Round  cut  No.  14. 


Fig.  43.     Hind  shank  soup  bone.     Round  cuts  Nos.  17,  18,  19. 


190 


BULLETIN   No.  158 


[July, 


Fig.  44.     Round  pot  roast.     Round  cut  No.  16. 


Fig.  45.     Knuckle  soup  bone.     Round  cut  No.  15. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  191 


Fig.  46.     Chuck  rib  roast.     Chuck  cut  No.  1. 


Fig.  47.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No. 


Fig.  48      Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  3. 


192 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


Fig-.  49.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  4. 


Fig.  50.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  5. 


Fig.  51.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  6. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  193 


Fig-.  52.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  7. 


Fig-.  53.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  8. 


194 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


i 


Fig.  54.     Chuck  steak.     Chuck  cut  No.  9. 


Fig.  55.     Shoulder  pot  xoast.     Chuck  cut  No.  10. 


1912}         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  195 


Fig.  56.     Shoulder  pot  roast.     Chuck  cut  No.  11. 


Fig.  57.     Shoulder  pot  roast.     Chuck  cut  No.  12. 


196 


BULLETIN  No.  158 


\Jnly, 


Fig.  58.     Chuck  stew.     Chuck  cut  No   13. 


Fig.  59.     Shoulder  clod.     Chuck  cut  No.  14. 


Fig.  60.     Neck      Chuck  cut  No.  15. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  197 


Fig.  61.     Brisket.     Plate  cut  No.  1. 


Fig.  62.    Navel.     Plate  cut  No.  2. 


Fig.  63.     Rib  ends.     Plate  cut  No.  3. 


198 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


Fig.  64.     Rib  ends.     Plate  cut  No.  4. 


Fig.  65.     Flank  stew.     Flank  cut  No.  1. 


Fig.  66.     Flank  steak.     Flank  cut  No.  2. 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  199 


Fig-.  67.     Shank  Stew.     Fore  shank  cut  No.  1. 


Fig-.  68.     Knuckle  soup  bones.     Fore  shank  cuts  Nos.  2,  3. 


Fig.  69.     Fore  shank  soup  bones.     Fore  shank  cuts  Nos.  4,  5,  6. 


200  BULLETIN   No.  158  [July, 


APPENDIX 

The  results  presented  in  the  text  of  this  bulletin  are,  in" -'the 
main,  averages  based  on  data  obtained  from  the  carcasses  of  three 
steers,  one  side  of  beef  being  used  in  each  instance.  For  the  con- 
venience of  any  who  may  wish  to  study  the  individual  results,  the 
cutting  tests  and  chemical  analyses  are  tabulated  in  full  on  the 
following  pages. 

Wholesale  cuts  of  three  sides  of  beef : 

Weights  and  percentages  of  lean,  visible   fat,  and  bone. 

Tables  i  and  2 Pages  201-202 

Chemical  analysis  of  boneless  meat  from  three  sides  of  beef : 
Percentage  composition  of  wholesale  cuts,   Tables   3,   4 

and  5   Pages  203-205 

Percentage  composition  and  weight  of  nutrients  in   fore 

quarter,  hind  quarter,  and  entire  side.    Tables  6  and  7 

Pages  206-207 

Ratio,   non-protein   to  protein   nitrogen   in   the   wholesale 

cuts.    Table  8 Page  208 

Percentage  composition  of  visible  fat.    Table  9 Page  208 

Retail  cuts  from  three  sides  of  beef : 

Weights  and  percentages  of  lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone  in 

entire  cuts.     Tables  10  to  23 Pages  209-218 

Weights  and  percentages  of  lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone  in 

trimmed  loin,  round,  and  chuck  cuts.     Tables  24  to 

32    Pages  219-227 

Weights  and  percentages  of  lean,  visible  fat,  and  bone  in 

trimmings  from  loin,  round  and  chuck  cuts.     Tables 

33  to  38 Pages  228-233 


1912}         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


201 


1 

"c3 

583£S£!o'g££gco'§o) 

o 
us 

1 

-°------°r°---i3 

>• 

IN 

Tfl 

0> 

SSS-SS^oSw^Sow 

O 

C- 

6 
£ 

0 

M 

toioco>o>oc\!oco            »n       aoo 

i-l                         rH 

C5 

•* 

i* 
« 

^^^ss§g§§^^wS§ 

CD 
CO 

1 

Oli-((MrH                  CQiH                  COi-l           r-l 

1—  1 
M 

c 

S^|2S^§^S^SS§IS§ 

CO 
CO 

o> 
a 

CO   Ol   *O   ^                  O    *O                  CO 

(M 
N 

(M 

73 

JO   GO   O3   CO   (M   T—  i   t—   CO   "^   O   *O   O   O   CO 

Cl 
t- 

£ 

Sco'£2!S2i>§'n'0oS$2^ 

t- 

>o 
tfl 

N 

a 

£^§5;§gSwN*Soo 

•* 

| 

o 

M 

lH 

CO 

% 

h 

0) 

<u 

j_, 

S^SSS^ggS^wS^S 

>n 
to 

J>-OOO            CO   (M   T—  '           T—  1   GO   i—  )   TH    O 

CO 
0 

a 

g  S  ^  S  S5  S  £  S  g  S  o  S  S  S 

•* 

(M 

rt 
01 

a 

CO    C^i    O   T^                    O   ^                   (M 

rH 
OJ 

"rt 

SoSSS^^^NN^SSS 

CO 
CO 

C-l   O   O   O    CO    C^l   'rH   Oi   "^   00   O    "^    C^O    O 

O 
t- 
N 

g 

s^^^^^s^^gggs 

OO 

0 

0 

O 

M 

CO-*OITO-*(M!>CO           iHCO           »T5O 

T—  1 

w 

CO 

Ui 

1) 

^ 

S  S  g  £  £  £  3  §  S  g  8  £  3  g 

o 

« 

£ 

fc 

OJCDO>O           COOt-           i—  1   »O   CO   r-  1    OS 
r-  1           r-t                         T-l                         T-I 

« 

t- 

fl 

SwcowSoow^wSSiS 

CO 

« 

j 

(M    rH    CO   CO                    •*   CO                   d 

0 

« 

o 
n 

V 

—t 
g 

•cd    • 

<u 

1 
1 
1 

£ 

..-cn           •^••••rtco 

G    X  .S    *-!    O    r^    O    <L)     O)  *±     ni    C 

<u 
IN 

'c 

w 

202 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


X 

w 
(/r 

H 
P 

U 

3 
•§ 

o 

B 


> 


"rt 

OOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOO 

00 

O 

H 

OOOOOOOC5OOOC1OO 
C5OC5OOOC5CT.    OOOCiOO 

o 

0 

CO 

<L> 

^S12§S^§S^^SS^ 

(Q 

I- 

6 
fc 

o 

PQ 

^^S  °°  S  2  2  2  *  w  *"     ^c 

a 

u 

rt 

S  S  w  5  §1  §  8  S  S  g  ?  g  S  « 

CJ 

t- 

V 

fa 

-----------§2S 

>n 

ro 

rt 

So5^§§SS§wS?5S 

t~ 

CO 

u 

J 

*O   *O   CO   t*»   CO    ^f    ?O   O   l^-   »O   "^   O^   "^ 

M 

>o 

*rt 

§§§ssggssi^ss;^s§ 

t- 
t- 

H 

•H 

00 
0 

N 

<L> 

c 

Sw^oSoSg^goiSo 

•<*< 

rH 

O 

o 
PQ 

^S^SSwSS^0000     ^° 

(M 

rH 

Id 

<u 

a 

§5S§S^So^S^?gS 

oo 
o 

_w 
CO 

C^JC'ii—  <rH            C^J    T—  1    TH    r-H   CJ   CO    »C           C5 

t- 

(M 

3 

§i^^SS^55^§^S^ 

»-o 

o 

u 

_! 

. 

o 

IO 

*c3 

oooooooooooooo 

oooooooooooooo 

o 

0 

o 

oooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 

0 

s 

rH 

V 

3§3§58o8o5ic38S§ 

o 

1 

6 
;z; 

o 

rH   iH            tO   Ol    i"H    rH            T—  t                    Th 

m 

rH 

h 

IU 

"rt 

S2S£oJ2^SSw^Sw§ 

o 

°. 

V 

c/s 

to 

CJ   Ol    ^H    iH            CO    rH    i—  (   iH   C*J    CO    >O            Oi 

I- 

(M 

c3 

§5*^§w§5!SSwg§§ 

00 

eS 

u 

J 

g  B  S  g  S  5  e  S  £  S  S  8  S  °° 

0 

«3 

tn 

3 

...  5J-,     .......... 

V 

:  :  .^  :::§:::::: 

tn 

JU 

O 

•     .     .  etf  ^     .     .  u     

| 

::  lei  §  :  _:j=j  ::::.*§ 

(U 

jyliljlllllll 

'!« 

u 
u 

•<?]         ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


203 


ll 

O5                 iH   ^ 
t-                00   CO 

O          O5 

Tf                  CO 

co  ^  r^«  TH  cc  TH  05 

Ort<THCO           t-COCD        CO           CDrHOO           CMOOJOJ-H?'^:iG5 

CO    Tf    t>    O5    CO 

o-.  01  TH  m  t- 

o           co  m 

O                       CO 

CO 

TH  m  to                 •  i- 

H        C                                                                       CM  Ol 
Ol 

u 

!-                O   CO 

CM                CO   CO 

O           i-l 

o        ^ 

CO   t-   O    "*   T(<   O    CO 
OlcO<MC5           CDCOCO        C           COi—lJ>           THOOlOlTfTHCD 

00   Ol  O   ^f   ^f 

O     C     TH     C     TH 

>n           co  T- 

5    ^ 

TH    CO    •*                              i- 

H         CC                                                                                   CM    Ol 
Ol 

o 

0 

t-               00  t- 

O              CO  t- 

•*           0 

O1CO'-1'*           OOGCCO        CO           OO5C5           CMCOin>OOi-HO} 
OlCMTHCO           Z-C5t-        •*           1-   TH   CO           COOCOCMCOrftO 

O  •*  ^f  CO  O 

TH     O     TH     C     TH 

m           •*  o 

0                        CO 

CO 

WT^TH 

H      m                                                      01  co 

u 

JC 

U 

•*           CM  •*  CD       cc 

m           oo  m  co        co 

t^                                                                                                OCDCOCOCMCOOO 

cs^ocsto        co-*o      01        m  co  co             roco-^THt-oo 

oo  in  co  CD  os 

oo  01  TH  m  co 

o  o  TH  o  i- 

CO                CO   O 

TjH                TH 

•* 

7-1  co  m                 i- 

^       CD                                                             Ol  Ol 
0) 

o 
rt 

£ 

O5           m  -* 

CD                ••*!   O) 

OS           ^* 

CO           00 

CSQjOJin           THGCO5        tO           COCDOS           Ol   Ol   Tf   CD   T—   »^7   CD 

m  o  m  T-.  co 
-*  co  r-  co  o 

O   O   C   C   i- 

O               CM  CO  O5 

O     TH                                            1- 
T^       T—  I 

H            tO                                                                                                                   TH     TH 

j« 

CO              N  OS 
o           oo  in 

iH           OOOoOmcO           TJ<O1CO        t-           OJ>t-           THTHC\JTHCOOICO           M'T-meMOO 
Tj<           t-Oj>mcO            COCOt-         OS            COOCO            i-iOTHTHO>mi>           O^OOO 

co           TH  m  i- 

CO                       CO   CD 

O  0 

m                                                   TH  i- 

.0 

5 

CO                00    O 
O                Cl   O5 

CO           Ol 
TH            OJ 

tOGCTfoooicco        t^  tr.  co  t-  co 

OjTj<O"*           GCCOiH        Ol           COOCO           C5   >—    ^H    TH   CO   00   OI           CDO>C5COCO 
TH   CO    GO   TH           CD    t—   ^        O           1C    TH   CO           i—1   O    Ol   Ol   ^f   00   CO           O   O    O    O   T-1 

C5                CO   t- 

TH                T- 

TH     TH     CO                                      T 

H          CO                                                                                            TH    Ol 
CO 

J 

01                CO   0 
O                00   t- 

CO           Ol-'fcOTHt-           C5COC 

m        Tt'THmci'*        i>ost 

4      co        m  co  co        01  01  m  in  o  o  o        CD  co  05  -i-  t- 

O                CO   CD 

0                T- 

TH     TH     CO                                      T 

H          Tt<                                                                                            TH    Ol 

co 

I 

t-                   OOTHO5             00    TH    O5    TH    O             CDOCO          CO             •*    CO    O             O    TH    5\J    rH    CO    T£    l>             in    O!    GO    ^t    CO 
O                moOCO           CMTHCO1OO5           CO   O   CO        CM           0   O   CO           CMOCMOlrfoCO!           OCOOTH 

CO                CO   05 

CO                T- 

TH    rH    01                     TH    T 

H        CO                                                                             T-   O. 
CO 

TT 
C 

0 

in           -*<  oo  01        TH  01  co  TH  Tti        c:  os  oo      co        co  Tf  j>        in  01  r~  cc  >:•;  cc  •*        ce  •*  CM  co  os 

t-                OOi-HO           Oli-HCOCOCO           CO    00   t-        J>           t>THOO           COOCOOJCOCMO5           COi-iOTH 

iH                 -^ICOCO            Ol            O1-*CO                            T 
O                            CO    CO                                       TH    TH 

H        CO                                                                       OJ  Ol 

TH                                                                                                                                   _ 

^ 

g  S 

HH   en 

01               N  OS 

0                CM   CO 

TH           COCMOOCMi-H           CCOCCO        ^h           t^i-.CO           OlO^-JO^'O-t-O           OOr-^OTH 

O                        CO  CO 

TH  in  t-                 T 

r-l  r-i 

H          J>                                                                                            Ol    CO 

C 

0 

tf) 

0 

Water  

Dry  substance 
Soluble  

Tnc^lllhlf  . 

c 
"5 

4 

I. 
C    £ 

'5    4 

>     2^ 

;     c,s 

)  Jj  ^    f 
^    (-,  "S    (- 

iH-|L 

:.£         ; 

Non-coagulable  protein  
Total  
Insoluble  protein  
Total  protein  
Organic  extractives 
Nitrogenous  
Non-nitrogenous  

.5  2          : 

<u  o< 

VH    ^-                            C 

«|     .S  o 

rt    •—    <y    C  ^^    r^t.  (— 
O  O  **  O  3  *      t 

o       'x"3  §  o  2'5'B  0*0  o  |  c 

(j                     in 
^  'c               O 

»    ffl-s    1 

o  ^^       S* 

S-S°|-T§ 

U   V   t>   w^2   O< 

"c.*B  'H  "^  *o  *2 
J5  "o  *o  "o  H3  o 
igo)cnHr5h' 

PH 

204 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[My. 


8 

c/i 


a 


w 
K 
U 


O  ca 

[T,     <- 

ift                ift   TH  CO          Cs  O   CS  04   TH          TH-rfiift          00 
CS                TH   co  ••*          T*I  TH  ift  CO  C!          OOOOO         t> 

Ci     I-     tO     TH     {>     TH     00 

04   TH   CO           •*   C    ift    tO    T-   T-   O4 

04                 •*    CO   Z>           TH           T- 

CO                         CO   CO 

CC     t-                           TH     TH               CO 

04   CO 

<J 

ift            OO4O4       o  IH  TH  m  to       mTHto       04 
co            omin       in  TH  to  cs  in       t-  o  t-       •* 

04   J>   CS   C!   00   T-   C: 
COlftOO           •*THlftCOOCOO4 
COTHt-           O4CC4O4-<J<O4!> 

Tf                   Tj<   O4   tD            TH            r- 

CO     1ft                          TH     TH               CC 
TH      TH                                                                   OJ 

04  04 

o 
U 

CS                   tO    TH   t—           Tj<    CO    t~*   t>    ^ 

in            cat-to       i>  TH  oo  04  T- 

CS    CO   CO           CO 

ac  cs  t-  oc  in  tc  T- 

OCCOC                  t-T—CVT-T-TftO 

t-THOC           OJOO->CCtO-*O 

CO                          Tj<     TH     tO                TH                T- 

to                  co  co 

1ft     t-                          TH    04               O 

04  CO 

U 

U 

oo            to  cs  m       t-i_oo4ccooo4O4       m 

t-                 CO   C4   tO           CO    TH    00    CS   00           CCOOO          rH 

t-  •*  TH  OS  ©  V3  *O 

04   to   CO           tO   O!   O   ift   1ft   CO   CC 
t-  T-I    00           C4C04O4inO4t> 

I-                 rfrl   OO   04           TH           T- 

m                  crc  Tf 

CO     1ft                           TH     TH               Tj< 
TH    TH                                                           O-l 

04  04 

OJ 

_rt 

ift                O  CC 
-*              co  c: 

to       to  cs  in  Ci  Th       m  to  TH       oo 
t-       cscotot-       int-co       o 

CO    in   00    -*   04   C   04 

C4                 O4   •<* 

0 

e 

r- 

2 

r-  04 

C 

a 
E 

04                 COOCO           00   CS   I-   t-   Tfr 

CO                  OCCOO           tO   O    t-   CS   t- 

CO    TH    -^JH             tO 

GC  m  co  to  o  •*  co 

04   t-   O           C    T-   C!   CO   in    CO   C! 

CO                 O4   rfi   CO 

CO                         CO   CO 

cc  cs                            in                                                      TH  TH 
m 

JS 

3 

r~            ooo       cs  TH  o  00  oo       •*  r-  TH       04 

CO                 COtOCS           iHTHCOlftCO           tOOOlft          CC 

c  cc  ac  >n  co  04  m 

Cl   O   C-           CS    T-*   O   O    TH   ift   tO 

m            co  T- 

^                T- 

T- 

T- 
f™ 

$ 

^T 

TH            CS 

CO 

TH    04 

'5 

CS                 O40CO           tO    CO   CS   Tt 

o             cs  C4  04        -^  TH  m  T- 

CV            CO    CC    TtH           C5 
t>           Z>   O   Z>          O5 

CO    T-   Tt<   CO   t-   CO   O 

CS                   CO    t-   TH            TH            T- 

O4    CO                            TH           Tj< 

TH    TH                                               CO 

T-I  04 

a, 

1 

m             co  O  oo        TH  o  T- 

tO                   in    TH    CO            CO    TH    rt 

t-   CO           CS   CO   04          t- 

tO    O           tO   CS   tO          04 

c;  to  »n  t—  04  t—  o 

in   TH   J>           O-!   C   M   O-l   "t   CC   CO 

tO                          CO     O     CO                TH                TH     T- 

CO                         T-I          00 
-rH                                       CO 

TH     04 

Round 

CS                 04   00 

TH           COtOCiOCt-           •^HO4tD          rt< 

m  co  04  TH  co  cc  TH 

O   "•*!   Tt<           O!   CO   ift   CO   CC    O4   TH 

TH                ift  C4  OO          O4          O4  IT 

CO                         CO   CO                                 T- 

£             THTH04            t- 

04  CO 

•0  ^6 

c  c 

il 

m             cocoes        tOTHi>ino4        mc4i>       co 
to            co^t—       inTHtoccm       GCTHCS       ^ 

T-I   |>   00    C4   C   to   tO 
tO   iH   00           04   C    OJ   04   1ft    C7    CS 

04                     Tt^    CO    t—             TH             TH    H. 

CD                         CO   CO                                 T- 

CO                     TH    TH            CC 

04  O4 

Constituents 

Water  

Dry  substance 
-  Soluble  
Tnsnliiblp  . 

C 

'5 

4- 

u 

2^ 

O.JI 

-S-X   n 

o*B  c 

CO 

Non-coagulable  protein  

Total 

!  'C 

C 

~L 
f 

C 
C 

4. 

~ 

1 

£ 

z 

\ 

c 
"S 

-(-. 

£ 

Organic  extractives 
Nitrogenous  
Non-nitrogenous  
Total  

Fat  

.s  £ 

C  a 

O.-^     -S                           U* 

"^    O          *•        i»  C 

n  o  y  c<  0  o  S 
o  5*5  c  "§  "^S,, 

^"c  "  o  8'3'3'c'oc  gc  S* 
«<OK.H*WW^           ^Hg 

o 
"c. 

c 

s 


1912}        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


205 


(U.^ 

t-   l-H    CO    CO    rH    OS    O            rH    00    OS    CO    t- 
i-H                 COCOtO          rHt-GOOOtO          COtOOS          t-          tO   CO  "*          l>   rH   CO  O   OS  CM  CM          OS  O    OS   O  O 
rH                  Tt<   CM   tO           1-HOrHrHCO           tOOtO           GO           »OrHt-           i-H   O    rH   CM   CO    Tf   00           OOOOrH 

OS                    CO    00    rH    .         T-H            r- 
O                        CO  •<*< 

IO   tO                 rH  i—  1          CM                                                                          CM  CM 

rH    i-H                                              CM 

o 

T-H  CM  co  t~  o  o  o       •<»<  »o  os  o  as 
co           as  o  as       Is-  t—  -*t<  co  t~       »o  o  *o       ^t<       o^1^       »o  T-H  co  o  t—  TT  i—  i       cc  o  oc  we  Tt< 
co           t-t--*       inototocM       toosio       as       to  1-1  i-       CM  o  CM  CM  •*  co  GO       o  o  o  o  rH 

OS                    CO    tO    O            rH            i- 
tfi                        CO   •* 

•^    tO                           rH           rH                                                                                CM   CM 
rH   rH                                          CM 

•p. 

o 

0 

OrHi-H^H(McOiO          OOCMOt^t- 

t—           ast-o       lOt-cMi-cs       ot-cM       t^       mcocc       OT-HI—  iTfiococo       cowi-'^j-'c 

O                    CO    tO    O            rH            r- 

to                 co  ^ 

•*    >O                   rH    rH           CM                                                                                CM    CM 

rH    rH                                          CM 

o 

u 

OO                 GO   t^ 

o            CM  a- 

tO          GOOOStOin          l>   OS  t-          tD          tOOl>          i—  1  O   rH   CM   Tj<   O  T 

O    O    rH   O    rH 

CM                 CO   ^  t- 

CM    CO                           rH           rH                                                                                CM   CM 

rH   i—  i                                      CO 

JS 

2           §5S       ^oSw? 

COOOO          O          CMrHr}*          OOOrHT-H'O».'" 

to  o  m  T*-  o 
o  o  o  o  T-H 

O                    rH    CO    >O 

00    00                                              «O                                                                                         rH    rH 
"O 

c 

_rt 

rj*                 CO  t-  -O          CO  O   •'f   GO  CN 

CMCOtO          00          CMOCO          OOOOrHCMrri          OOOOO 

O                   r-i   t-   OS 

co                to  to 

t-  OO                                          OS                                                                                T-H    rH 

& 

rH                    OSTt^CO            O    t—    t^-    f>    T^            OitDlO            rH            t—    tO    CO            Tt<rHlO*OrHOSO            tOrHt-^CM 
O                   WlOtO           OSOasOSCS           -*tOrH           O           Tj>O>0           i—  1    O   rH   i-H   CO    in    C5           OOOOrH 

rH                 CM   tO  GO 

OS    O                             rH            tD                                                                                        rH    rH 

a 

'o 

_4 

tO                 CSrHO          OtOtOrHt—          COCOtO          00          t-WO5          Tf<   O   »O   to   CM  i—  1   fr          t^-oOO'OTf 
i—  1                 tOCMOS          GSOOSt^tO          »Ot—CM          CO          Tj'T-Hio          i—  lOrHi—  ICOI>O          Oo^^rH 

CO                CM  ^  O 
Tf                  10  >ra 

O    r- 

rH          «                                                                          rH  CM 

o. 

§ 

CO                   COrHT«           i-Ht-OOCOrH           IflO'O           tO           OCMCM           M<   rH    >n   t-    CO   i—  1    Tt"           tO^ 
rH                     GOCMO            OS    O    OS    1-    t-            OCOCO            CO            ICrHO            ,-HOrHrHCOt-O            Oc 

cr,  >c  CO 

O    O    rH 

%                    W    r- 

3              2  3           "•     §                     .            -  M 

•o 
c 

0 

00                 O   ^ 
00                 tO   "~ 

rH          OrHt-t-lO          OSCMrH          tO          t^-OOO          CMOCM(M»OC>'1>          rH  O   i—  O  rH 

GO                   Tf    tO    i-l           rH           r- 
IC                          CO  t" 

CO  >O                 rH  CM          CM                                                                          CM   (M 

rH    T-L                                        CM 

•OJM 

c  c 

t-                 rn^tO          i-HOCMOOrH          >OOCrO          •*          >Oi-HtO          rHOCMrHCOCMtO          OOOOrH 

O                    CO    O    CO            rH             r- 

CO   »C                        —  1          to                                                                          CM   CM 
rH  rH                                      CM 

Constituents 

Water  

Dry  substance 
Soluble  
Insoluble  . 

Total  
Soluble  protein 
Coagulable  protein  
Non-coagulable  protein  
Total  . 

-• 

Insoluble  protein  
Total  nrotein  . 

Organic  extractives 
Nitrogenous  
Non-nitrogenous  
Total  

Fat 

;          ;  C     •          • 

.5  2         .: 

1>    OH 

"o  oj           _, 

*~  •—  c       p 
p,^  .5       ^ 

<L>  "3  -^  .S    O 

*5  °      Q,  C  "^  c 

"5  "o  .2  6P  3  ^  5  *5  £5^5 
jj=*o  "  °  2*0  *o  O-Q  o  £  c 
;^c^^Hg^ 

Phosphorus 
Soluble  inorganic  
Soluble  organic  . 

3S 

"o  4: 
"o  i 

Total  phosphorus  .  

206 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


TABLE  6.  —  CHEMICAL  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  FORE  AND  HIND  QUARTERS,  AND  THE  ENTIRE  SIDES, 
EXPRESSED  IN  PERCENT 

Half  carcass 

£  6 

<N              O 

CO               OC 

t- 

CO          O*  O 

CilTlOO           O^rHO         CO           OCC 

CO              (M 

o 

00 

o 

TH  el                TH      <r. 

TH     1—                                                      CO 

»-  (M 
V   o 

<N               00 

CO               00 

t- 

o 

0           5    r^ 

cc^c       mcOi-H      t-       ot~-r- 

int-CO           t—   Cit-         rH           CDr-t- 

rH                  00 

o 

3 

00            TH 

i-i    Cl   •<*•                          rH         (M 

r-    i—                                            O^ 

<u    . 

«   0 

co  !zi 

00               00 
CO               m 

i-H                  CO 

m 

r: 

t~           00    CO 

a>       co  I-H 

•H/CCC           r-l>00        "^          OCC^t^ 

m  •**•  c       t-  t>  ^      oo       m  o  cc 

5 

00           rH 

r-   M   •«*•                        rH        CM 

rn    T-I                                    CO 

<u 

2 

CT1 

•o 

(-H 

IH   OO 

4J    O 

00             Cl  CO 

O          0  C5 
O5         O  O 

ocot-       cot^O      to       inom 
rHint-       coocira      o       mrnco 

t>               CO   00 

TH               T-H 

in 

rH    i-l                                        CO 

V-  (M 

v  6 

CO                    r^ 

8 

CO          •*   C< 

oc-i—  o       1-1  o  IH      rf       oomoc 

COOCTf            CCCOO         •<*•            CCr-Z> 

0               "* 

-t 

00           rH 

TH    CJ    •*(•                       T-I    1-1          TH 
TH    TH                                           OO 

<u  o 
CO  X 

(M              O  •*  CO          O  <N 
O               00   •*   00          i-O   i- 

rH    O    rH              in    ^    O          CO             CC    CO    O 

i~  m  ft       t~  oo  »«      oo       m  o  co 

1-H                  OO    -<t 

OC           rn 
•* 

TH    1—                                                CO 

Fore  quarter 

I-  CO 

u  6 

1-1                       T-I    t- 

O                 CO   CO 

00           t-   CO 

<y>       t-  o 

COt-i-H            inCOl-l          O            COrHt- 

oooct-       >nt-co      oo       -^r-in 

in           N  M  rt< 

C    rH                     -        TH          i-H 

0    O 

co  Z 

0               t~- 

O             CO 

CO 

CC 

CO          CO  TH 

Tt<COrH            t-O!CO          00            inrHt- 

i-l               CO 

in 

* 

O           rH 

r-    I-l                                           CO 

U    rH 

*i  6 
coZ 

iH              (MO 

o          co  o; 

w       TH  oc  o  w  i—  i       t—  or-      o       co  i—  i  t- 

•n           WrHOOTTOC           COt-OO         CO           mrHCO 

O                  CO    CO    O            rH 

TH   OJ    00                             T-I         CO 

r-    TH                                        CO 

Constituents 

Water  

Dry  substance 

Snlnhlp 

d 

^ 

'c 

g 

Total  
Soluble  protein 
Coagulable  

Nnn-rnasrnlablp 

!/3 

(Li         en 

'I    c'£          C 

^11  §1 

o     ^£^g£ 

..    CX  0   £  *; 

^J_  0  g=c_ 
JS*B  5  c  «-  c  ^ 

C  "7^    C   rt  •—    C    o 

H  °H  £££H   * 

^0               ^ 

-i-*rt 
^c!  ^^ 

ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


2C7 


TABLE  7.—  WEIGHTS  OF  CHEMICAL  CONSTITUENTS  OF  THE  BONELESS  MEAT  OF  THE  FORE  AND  HIND  QUARTERS,  AND  THE  ENTIRE 
SIDES,  EXPRESSED  IN  KILOGRAM  s1 

Half  carcass 

V-  CO 

<u  6 
co  Iz; 

TH        O          TH   c   TH          CM  CM   •**<   CO   CO          CO  •*   CO        C:          •HHt-i-H 
rf<        TH          CO   *O  CO          kO  TH  CO   tO  CM          O  CO   CO        CD          CO   TH  o 

•o 

n 

o 

o. 

(M 
CM 
en 
*c5 

cr 
w 

c« 

be 
15 

OJ 

O 

CD        t-                 GC   CO 

TH     GC    O                          TH    Ol            HZ                                    TH 

£  6 

CO        CO          CM  »    O          C 

CD  t*-   "^  O          O!  t-»  CD        CM          O   CM  CM 

i—iCOCCJ          C5CMCM        1C          COCMO 

CO        tO                 O   CD 

CM  CD   CO                 i-  CSJ        CM                        TH 

V-.     TH 

<u  o 

COZ 

tO            CM               CO     TH     t^               TJH 

COt-COCO          CMGCC        C!          COOOO 

TH        CM          CO  CD   Ci          TH          TH  CM  ^                        TH        CO 
O        »O                  ^f   ^                                TH  i—i                                    CO 

Hind  quarter 

«-  CO 

^  6 

CO        O          O   C5   O          TH 

CDCOOOO          t>>nCC!        TH          THJ^OO 

rf        m          C^!  CD   CO 
t-        CO                  CO   CO 

00   O                          TH         t- 

^   (M 

<u  o 

•rtn        CO          COCOO          COOO>-OOira          T-  CM   CO        CO          C^C:   CO 
Tf        CM          mt-CO          CiCOOO          iracDrH        CD          COC^ 

CO        CO                  W   CO 

TH    CO    C5                             TH          O 

<u  6 

CO  ^ 

CM        TH          CM   TH   CO           ~f 
CO        CO          CO   CO   CO          t> 

OCOGCCD          COCOt-        C5          M  O   CO 

-*        CM                  CM   (M                                                                               TH 

<u 
E 

a! 

3 
cr1 

u 
O 

I-  CO 
1>    o 

CO  £H 

CO            TH               TH    O     TH               ^H 

lOt-COO          i-J  O   TH        t-          COOCO 

O        ^                Tfi  o 

CO                           TH         GC 

l-<  CM 

CD  O 

CO   /H 

t^        »O          1C  CO   Tfi          C7S 

OCOOOO          TftDTH        GO          TfTHlO 

C5        >O          CM  iH  Tt< 
CO        CO                 CO  CO 

TH    QO    C5                             TH          CI 
O> 

l-l     TH 

<y  6 
co  £5 

tn      c\f       <M  TJH  co       to 

CO        Ci          CO   CO   TH          CD 

TH!>GC»n          COCOt-        •*          COOCO 

»O        CM                 CM   CM 

tO   l>                                     GC 

TH 

Constituents 

Total  weight  without  l)one  "  

Water  
Dry  substance 
Soluble  
Insoluble  
Total  
Soluble  protein 
Coagulable  

<U           (« 

J5       o       rt  2  &*„ 
^       t;       i.  s  be 

1    °"    "><  c  £ 

•c"^  ^S 

208 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


{July, 


TABLE  8. — RATIO  OF  NON-PROTEIN  TO  PROTEIN  NITROGEN  IN  THE  BONELESS  MEAT 
OF  THE  WHOLESALE  CUTS 


Steer 

No.  1 

Steer 

No.  2 

Steer 

No.  3 

In  water 
extract 

In  meats 

In  water 
extract 

In  meats 

In  water 
extract 

In  meats 

Hind  shank  

1  •  1  09 

1:10.20 

1  •  0  99 

1:  9.70 

1     1  12 

1:13.53 

Round  

1  •  1  30 

1:  9.30 

1  •  1  06 

1:  8.40 

1     0  94 

1:  8.55 

Rump  

1  •  1  05 

1:  9.40 

1  •  1  04 

1:  9.80 

1     0  89 

1:10.70 

Loin  

1  •  0  99 

1:  8.50 

1  •  1  04 

1  :  9  .  00 

1     0  92 

1  -11.11 

Rib  

1  •  0  98 

1  •  9  60 

1  •  1  01 

1  -10  00 

1     0  97 

1  -11  07 

Flank       

1  •  1  15 

1  '15  00 

1  •  0  90 

1  •  9  50 

1     0  84 

1  -16  08 

Plate              

1  •  0  91 

1  '11  60 

1  •  0  95 

1  -10  80 

1     0  83 

1  -14  04 

Chuck  

1  •  1  08 

1  •  9  90 

1  •  1  12 

1  :  9.80 

1     0  59 

1  •  8.61 

Clod  

1  •  1  41 

1  -11  00 

1  •  0  94 

1  •  8  70 

1     0  88 

1  -10  34 

Neck  

1  •  1  21 

1  '16  60 

1  •  1  08 

1  -10.40 

1     1  27 

1  -12  57 

Fore   shank  

1  •  0  94 

1  '10  60 

1  •  0  99 

1  -11.00 

1     0  93 

1  -14  86 

Average  

1  •   1  02 

1  '11  10 

1  •  1  02 

1  •  9  70 

1     0  93 

1  -11  95 

TABLE  9.— CHEMICAL   COMPOSITION   OF  THE  VISIBLE  FAT  FROM    STEERS   Nos.   1 
AND  2,  EXPRESSED  IN  PERCENT 


Calculated  to  the  fresh 
substance 

Calculated   to  water-free 
substance 

Steer  No    1.  .  . 

Water 

Pro- 
tein 

Ether 
extract 

Ash 

Nitro- 
gen 

Pro- 
tein 

Ether 
extract 

Ash 

Nitro- 
gen 

12.07 
13.22 

4.54 
4.30 

83.39 
82.71 

.726 
.689 

5.17 
4.95 

94.83 
95.32 

.826 
.794 

Steer  No.  2  

.20 

.23 

ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


209 


rH 
*rt 

oSo^N           S5wS           ^^Sol§^«« 

tc 

rj< 

O 

«   «    W   W   «           ^^^^           COCOfONWCOCO^H 

O 
1> 

u 

e 

w^wSS     S5?S     ^^?^«5^§ 

SI 
to 

6 

o 



to 

i_ 

<L> 

•^t*CDGOOO            OOQCGC            irtCO^'COrH^'^t™ 

t- 

iH 

t- 

(M 

5 

$S8S£     c3S§S     §S5^S^^S 

00 

CO 

.3 

cocofocoiN       <M<M<MT-I       i-HTHi-nr-ii-ii-ii-i 

to 

CO 

15 

co«o^Spo^SS??§cSogS5 

m 
•* 

0 

H 

^COCO^^^^^COCOCOWrOCJNtMNN 

CO 

to 

OJ 

v 

«W^«*2SS«?1W^MS5^N^ 

to 

O 

o 
« 

id 

Iri 

§§8S§SSSSS5i!?2i§§?2g2Sgg 

0 
00 

u 

£ 

rH                    i-t   i-l           THi-HrHr-l^rt 

fc. 

rt 

g  1?  S  S  S  S  S  *  S  8  8  S  S  S  S  S  T  5 

c 

_] 

GO 
CO 

*rt 

i-l   TH   M    I>   t-   (M           Ot»t>CM-*Tf<O           t^OOGC 

GO 

*e> 

0 

H 

OJ  CO  CO  CO  Tf  CO          CO  (M  N  (M  <M  i-H  iH          i-l  ,-H  ,-. 

<N 

•* 

u 

c 

^SI^SS^     ^SSS^^^     ^?3S 

CO 
tti 

o 

0 

n 



CO 

1* 

(U 

, 

gg^sso    ss^tssss    ^s^ 

C5 

cS 

l-H    i-l    1-1 

CN> 

rt 

£$gS3£     g  8  8  S  «  gj  S     ^§i 

GO      ' 

U 

nJ 

to 

01 

•ccccc    {    

'^•ZjB^Jajz'^'    ^ 

U5 

C<u-T3-aooo:':':     rg 

0 

V^SB-^-^-7      <" 

4-t  ^^  ^  ^  ^  n  CL                                                'L* 

: 

O 

3 

M 

<u 

^ 

||||li|ss|ggs;s  s^^^f 

'5 

1-i2.hi:t—  .—  ocoooocc:::::'::;'£ 

<u 

tftCfl(«t«WWW(X4ft4fcfW(XtA.PHfcUUUfeH 

C 

1-5  CM   CO   ^  >O   O   t-   GO'   C5  O    i—  i   CI   CO*   T£   W   to'   I>   00   Ci 

W 

210 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


"rt 

OOOOO         t~-    CC   C*I   O           ^HOOOGOrHt—   O 

to 

O 

OOOOO         CCC5OO          C!OC5OGCC;C5O 
OOOOO         OCSC5O           CSCCiOCSCiC-.    O 

c-. 
o 

iH             ,-<    ,-J     r                                                                    T-l             i-H                               ^H          ] 

ID 
g 

iftro-^oo       w  ^  i—  i  os        toooNccmco 

GOT-(Tt<C5OS         OCOi—  IO          TH   N  rj<  to  to  N  iH 

* 

0 

o 

m 

r^to^foto      inosi>GO       Gc^^cixx^c^o 

C5 

u 

<L» 

± 

^SSSS    8^?^     PS^^SP^N 

o 
o. 

t* 

m  oo  co  t-  o       m  to  •*  »n        co  oo  m  t-  i—  i  w  co  o 

GO 
CO 

S^SSS    ^§P?^     Sgg^SSgg 

'     CO 

to 

1U 

OS>ft(M'-IN         !>COt-tO           t-OCO^<00(MMC5 

1-1 

15 

coTj<t-tbiMGOoOi-ifotot-rotoinc^o»n 

GO 
GO 

o 

§SSolololS£S§SSS§g§?.S 

£ 

w 

w 

£33gc2^£o'S§£SDS£gS£S6 

•* 

GO 

6 

0 

W 

tototo^.-|^tooiototoint-otoj>oto 

GO 

u 

aj 

igo^Sco^SSSSwoSSSSg 

m 

o 

<L> 

(MW(M(M<M           (MCOfOrOCOCOfOWCOCCCOCO 

GO 
(TJ 

i^S^^S^^SSS^SSSo^SS 

O 
Ci 

§«®S«iSS«SS55S«««>«Ms 

O 

to 

15 

ooooob       obooooo       ooo 

c 
o 

o 

oooooo       ooooooo       ooo 
oooooo       ooooooo       ooo 

0 

o 

r  H 

V 

c 

gS£i3£S     SS^S^gg     3  £5 

<# 

0 

o 

i-l    i—  1            iH                                                                    i-l    r-l 

CO 

t_ 

W 

3££S°.S     i£g£o£o     £££ 

CO 

to 

fj 

CQ  GO  o  in  ^  to       GC  in  to  cj  cs  r^  cc       w  ^t1  ^t* 

GO 
(M 

OtOOi>lftGO            tO    CO    •*    rH    in    00    OS            GCOtO 

to 

0 

<U 

J 

C^   T^   Tj<   tO   C*J   C^l           GO    O5   GO   i—  1    CO   tO   CQ           O   C*l   O 

i-  i-  to  >n  to  to        m  m  m  to  to  to  to        m  to  to 

W 

O 

:o^5*^'j  

•ccccc    

OOOOO  /*—  N 

en 

•g  iJ,^,  i  i,  §    ^ 

3 
u 

Illllllll^lllll     1 

_o 

c3 
t5 

^rcj^-'^OUQJ^^^^^1'3^^  J^  ^  ^    ^ 
-^mtQUjtolnl^oOOOOOOCoSSn1 

c 

Tit:T;T;i:T:*z:g^g  g^g^^'5*§s-= 

o 

tfliHiflwwtflwa^fcfcfcfcfcfcOGOH 

l« 

^^s^co^mtot-GOCvo^^(Mcv;Ttii.-tot-coc3 

W 

i<)i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


211 


03 

O   t-^   CO   00 

s 

O 

CS   O   CM   t- 

d 

H 

rH    rH 

"* 

CO   OS   ^*   CO 

OS 

CO 

c 
o 

O    to   00   rH 
rH    rH    rH   rH 

0 

d 

cq 

•z 

f—  1 

O5   00    tO    rH 

Zu 

o 

,,_, 

rH    t-   O    CO 

CO 

u 

oJ 

•^  co'  T)H  CM* 

•*' 

oo 

rH 

C 

•*    OO    l>   O 

OS 

U 

T)<    1C    to'   •* 

C 

J 

CM 

"o 

-*   O   Z>   l~ 

rH   CO   rH   rH 

00   OS   O   00 

00 

r- 

H 

rH 

CO 

CM 

u 

C 

0  !>   CM   OS 

00    rH    -*    00 

CO 

0 

'   rH   rH       * 

M^ 

d 

pq 

fe 

CM   CM   CO    OS 

CO 

IM 

OS   CD   00    00 

CM 

U 
V 

t/) 

03 
EC, 

CM  CM  CM  rH 

O 

' 

CB 

CM    rH    O    1C 
CM   -*   00   CM 

OO 

O 

<U 

«^4   1C    1C   1C 

o' 

^ 

CM 

1 

0 

00    t-    1-    rH 
J>    CO    t-    CO 

co 

H 

CM 

s 

OS    rH    Tfl    rH 
00    CS    •*    rH 

1C 
CO 

0 

rH    rH 

^44 

d 

pq 

las 

Tfl    tO   t-   Ir- 

zz 

QI 

CS    O    t-   rH 

OS 

£ 

cS 
fe 

rH   CM   rH   rH 

to 

3 

1C  O  tO  CO 
OS   t>   1C   O 

•* 

CM 

^ 

CM   CO   ^J*   ^ 

rH 

CO     CO     CO        • 

"2  r2  r2     I 

-i 

CM   O    00       • 
rH   rH 

i 

o3   cd    o3   *~* 

3 

sff^S 

u 

1-1              ^_^, 

f 

si 

rt 

CO     CO     CO     V. 

*? 

03    o3    rt    rj 

O    O    C    C 

O 

rH    CM'    CO"    •*' 

W 

u 


3 

00  =  0 

0  O  O  0 

g 

o 

0 

o  c  o  d 

o 

H 

0  O  0  O 

o 

rH 

CO 

1 

00   O   O   •* 
Z>   t~   CS    CO 

'  O 

o 

O  1C  "^  ^ 

^ 

d 

pq 

rH    rH    rH   rH 

rH 

u 

V 

-M 

00   I-   CO   00 
t-   rH    00    -* 

CS 
CO 

V 

en 

Ed 

CO   1C    CM   OS 
•^<   CO    CO   CM 

1C 

CO 

c 

CO   CO   t~   00 
Tj<    rH    CM    rH 

1C 

<u 

1C   OS   CM   tO 

o' 

J 

** 

1C 

3 

0 

l>   W    CM   CO 
t-   O!    00   CM 

00   CC    00   00 

00 

* 

CO 

H 

Os  os  cs  os 

OS 

CM 

<U 

c 

to  oo  to  cs 

O   1C    CS   00 

rH 
CM 

0 

rH   CM    CO    O 

CM' 

d 

PQ 

rH    rH    rH   rH 

rH 

s? 

!>   t>   CO   CO 

. 

IM 

00    rH    00   rH 

to 

U 
U 

« 

ic"  oo'  t-^  co 

oo' 

tfi 

CO   CM   CM   CM 

CM 

c 

••*<   t-   CO   tO 

00   rH    O   CM 

O 
00 

o3 

cU 

rH    00    t-    rj< 

^J 

^ 

1C   1C   1C   CO 

1C 

"o 

O   C    O   O 

O  O  O   O 

o'  d  d  d 

o 
o 

d 

H 

o  o  o  o 

o 

rH 

CU 

c 

O    Tf    CO   OS 

O 

o 

1C   CO   00   t- 

CO 

d 

PQ 

rH    rH    rH    rH 

^ 

cy 

_,_, 

CO   OS   00   Tt< 
1C   00   I-   1C 

CO 

i! 

r^ 

T 

co  o'  CM  oo' 

to 

W 

CO   CO   CM   »-l 

CM 

c 

O  Tfi  tO  00 

3 

CU 

rH   1C   OO   CO 

jj 

1-1 

ic  ic  «n  to 

1C 

CO     CO     CO 

'C  'C  'C 

CO 

-w 

CM   O    00 

3 

rH   rH 

O 

_  —  ^ 

£) 

—    C    C  •" 

C 

rt   rt    o3    '- 

I 

~  cs  jt!  S 

CU 

X 

C^-^^- 

CO      CO      CO      C/) 

••2 

o3    o3    o3    03 

O    O    O    O 

<u 

P(i04j3E$P^ 

IM 

rH   CM*   Co'   Tj<' 

a 

w 

212 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July 


U 


> 


"c3 

OTCMOOUS'-iffO                         rj<           OOtOOOWiH 
t-OOOOONOOO                         CO           J>lfflTtiOt-O 

TH 

o 
H 

TH 

N 

C5 

u 

t-<Ot-mO5OO»«O                       >O          COTtiC5C5IM(M 

t-in-^NT-iT-ii-ii-i                  w        >nrt"Oot-TH 

O5 

o 

o 

^ 

o 

m 

IM                                                                                     CQ         TH         CO 

CO 

TH 

u 

W 

_,_, 

ocoTHWOoocoo                  co        mmiNOcoeo 
O5coo5oooco«n>o                 »n       ot-«oo2«OTH 

TH 

•* 

£ 

,rt 

fc 

"*                                      TH     TH                                                            TH                TH                ,-,                          rH 

M 

ooo5«nOO«nfOT-i                  co        r-^csiHt-co 

OCOtOOSOJ'fflOCO                       O          rHTj<I>Tt<COCO 

M9 

t- 

1 

t>coco-*-*o»n^                  TJ<        co        »OTHN 

o 

»0 

*c3 

THO«OOC-O5>niTH                              TH             O^THCOCCO 
THW»nOTHl-00®                         CO           OOOiNOTHt- 

<M 
TH 

o 
H 

TH 

t- 
Ej 

a 

OdOOW-^NlH-*                                      -^1                t-(MTHOTHO5 
LOOCOdTHiHTHTH                              TH             THTfrlTHCSCeO 

«o 
o 

6 
JZ; 

o 

m 

N                                                                                                   CO           TH           CO 

3 

u 

V 

*-> 

rj<wcooknTtHooo                 TH       Tt<o«o-«j<j>co 
-*-<tico'*>n»ooot-                  oo        tococx>T-^(Mc<! 

C5 

»n 

.W 

53 

jt 

h 

CO 

o 

TH 

S*°£8§£o           S     S  §  S  ?.  g  g 

CO 

3 

«O  «  »  •*•*•*««                         CO           WTHZ>THIM 

iH 

»o 

*c3 

^S?^cogocot3°SSwoocSSScS 

>n 

TH 

o 
H 

TH 

o 

(0 

<u 

§££££§§§§§§£§££     g  ^  § 

CO 

Tt< 

o 

1  ^ 

O 

(M                                                                                           (M  O  TH          (M 

o 

TH 

Ll 
<u 

Sw«JS«.««5l5?$w5§S3SS?e;«8 

o 

CO 

d> 

(2 

CO 

TH 

03 

gg^SSSSS^^SSSSSTtSSg 

t- 

CO 

J 

C3 
CO 

•a   :   :'::!'•;  o 

*-* 

:  g  ::::::::::::.::  15 

U 

«>-..>* 

T3 

O 

1 

rt 
U 

« 

^    «                                                                tn  ^j   rt   "5 

c 

o 

l^^^^^^^^^^^^^tSfg^^^ 

<u 
u 

THNCOTjt»O»t.XO>OT-iNf5Tt<m«Ot-OCC; 

W 

ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


213 


"c3 

o  <H  o  i-i  o  w  oo  ^                t~       c-*cooo 
ot-omoi-ioo                 •*       co  co  o  c  o  o 

o 

0 

0 

H 

OOOOC5OOC5C5                         O           C^OOOCO 
OC5OC2OCVC2O                         O           C5   Ci   O   O   O   O 
~H             ~-             i—  >                                                                                           1-H    i-H    i—  I    -^ 

o    • 

0 

u 

5DrHNt-OO«DmO5                            00           O5int-»OCOC2 

t-ocoTHOi-nt-io                  w        ccooiNroto 

>n 
t- 

o 

X 

o 

m 

1-1     1-1                                                                                                                              TH     IO                TJH     1-1     O 

^ 

u 

<u 

-M 

tOOrHr-i-Hl>OOOO                              O             t-    C5    t-    O    l-H    t- 

lMiHO5D-*C5rt<00                        (M          O>"n-*»OOO»n 

•* 

(M 

rt 

roi>oorO5DooiM»o                   o        -r-it-oweoco 

CO 

co 

03 

OOOt-l--i-l(M>.'5O                         O           t^OO«n«D'*1 

C5O5O5OOOOOO                  o        coTf<Mwaoi> 

to 

a 

r-Odi-iooocoi-i                 oo       <o  o  oo  tn  m  ct 
•3<t~t-cc<x>t~t~t-                 (O       fS       t~  ro  «o  1-1 

0 

"c3 

OOO^COOOCOrt                         C2           t-   00    «    t-   TH   T-I 
tOfMSO^i-ICOt-OO                         CO           •nOOCO'^'OS 

0 
1-H 

o 
H 

oooot~aooor-t-C5                  oo        t-ooo3i>oot-- 

OC5OC5OOiOC5                         O           OC5O5C5OO 

00 

en 

V 

OTj<TtiOO(MOt-O                         O           W5W5Tt«i-lO-«)< 
tO-*CQCOt>tO(NO                         TH           -*t>rOt-CO>-O 

1—  1 

t- 

o" 
[z; 

o 
pq 

O   iH   00   ^   C^l   W   CQ   CO                         CO           ^   O^   i—l   »O   C^   CO 

<M  I-H                                                             co       tn  TH  oo 

t> 

TH 

u 

OJ 

4-> 

oo«ocotoj>ooi-*                  TJ<        o>noo«ra(N»n 

COI>O5OO-^-*C5                         «5           5CO-*O»OCO 

CO 

(• 

co 

QOOl-OOi-HOt-                         C5           <O<OOCOOO<O 
WrH                     1-ll-Hl-HlH                              1-1             1-H             1—  1 

CO 
1—  1 

o3 

too^ooocooco                 oo       >ow(Mt-»no 

>n 

*: 

?i2ooooaooo?t£                  l>        ^Nooco?00 

« 

<D 

"c3 

oooocooooooooocococ 
oooooocoocoooooooco 

o 

<=> 

0 

OOOOOOOC5OOOOOOOOCOO 

oooooooooooocccocoo 

0 

o 

1—1 

r 

§SSS^SSS8STi:sg5S     SSJ? 

CM 

«* 

o 

0 

00»«5^CONWNWCOCO^«5NC^^O 

t- 

TH 

u 

(U 

^'SS^SgggSgggg^wSPS 

(M 

T—  I 

rs 
fc 

^H(MCOOlH(MCO>0>OC5l-HOT)-i-HTH01t-l-HrH 

t- 

9 

?15SSS2^?2S2§^§^^g5^§ 

CD 

* 

a 

y^SS8g^g£8§S58« 

tt 

0 

:::::::::::::::::  :^ 

01 

-*- 

i 

:?  :::::::::::::::   :o 

i 

(U       •       •       •  ^^ 

"Sn                                                                                                             fli 

js    .a       ccc 

^   ooo 

C 

C 

silllimtllllll  111 

*o 

A 

+- 
I 

PC 

' 

u    "i                                                                      <"^jrttn<«<n 

c 
o 

hnsn^^^nn^^^SS^^jrtairS 

3OOOOOOOOQQQOOCor-r-r- 

u 

TH   04   CO   •*'   0   «>   t-'   CO    d   0    TH    CQ    CO    Tt<    W    «0   t^   00   05 

rl 

•c 

rt 


214 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


(Ju.y. 


o 

pq 


co  Tf  o  to  »n  to  in  o 


u 

m 

H 

fe 
O 

tn 
H 

U 


O 

X 


i<)i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


215 


"w 

OOOTHMOOOOOtOOOOO 

00 

o 
h 

cSocic:coccccicccc 

o 

CS 

|              T—  1      ^-t                                                         t                         r—      r 

4> 

g£S8£g£?.  £££££$$ 

to 

03 

o 
£ 

O 

pq 

r-HT-(T-HT-4iH                      y-t                     T—  *    T-H                      CQ 

o 

1-1 

L, 

U 

CO   CO   Ci   O    *^   O           ^   O    i~^   O    CD    CC    *O   CO 

to 

00 

CO 

rt 

WN^WwS0WW^W^!*WW 

(N 

w 

e 

5SSSSS5SS?:SSSgiN 

-f 

c 

3 

SS^SSSSSSSSSg^S 

o 
o 

"rt 

St2^t2gSi^S5wMc-w 

C-l 

N 

O 

H 

--"--«------**£ 

oc 

C5 

g 

§§S??iS§5:Si§ciS5§ 

CS 

w 

o 
fc 

O 

M 

SSSS00®0000®^00^^^00 

o 

I—I 

u 
U 

i?§§SPS^^^g^SS?: 

o 

rt 

MOOOMMO'Hi—  iO»-1^t<»ftOCO<N 

o 

co 

^^§^SS§5?:g*iSSS« 

<M 

CO 

^ 

iH«CQ'*Ml>GO*«OCi;t-OTj.l.'5 

•H 

"rt 

§oocococccoocco 
oooooccccoccco 

o 
o 

o 
H 

coooccooccccccc 

COOCCOOQOCCCCCO 

0 

o 

*"* 

c 

Tf^OO^C^Jr-io^JC^OCCOOCDOlCC 

CO 
U) 

o 

O^O^OCSLT^Cl-OCl           OCO 

(M 

6 
£ 

cq 

<M 

L< 

dl 

^SS^Ss^cliSiSSow 

1—  1 
•<f 

* 

cn 

M 

I-IT-H       ~^^-:                 r-iw       MI-ICQ 

0 
J-t 

g 

W^OO^oSS^Sgi^g^ 

0 
0 

J 

OW05CCC-:«t-00"C»HTH^-!CO 

1—  1 

to 

3 

d 

u 

u 

^,   

a 

CJ 

P^    rtr3rtc3rtrtrtrt 

< 

• 

-» 
(U 

1^ 

r||||||||lii^^ 

u 

JS 

o 

«6uuuuouoo,a,ft.inug 

i. 

T—t   OJ   CO   Tf   O   O   t~   QC    O    O   i~  '   ^1   CO   ^"   O 

w 

216 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


X 

w 


PL, 


b 
U 


*c3 

rH    tO   O   t-    O 

CS   »fl   i-l   CO   O 

0 
o 

o 
H 

t--   »O   tO   00   •* 
(M   CM 

N 

t- 

CO 

d 
£ 

0 

C 

o 
CQ 

oo  o  >o  ••*> 

(M   «O   t-   00 

N  rH            o 

CO 

«n 

LO 

i_ 

<u 

CM  •*  t~  iH   O 
t-   QO   O   CO    O 

•^1 

CO 

m 

to 

i-l   rH   (M   -*    T}< 
rH   rH 

kfl 

.  OT 

rt 

3 

rH     tO     Tt<     CM 

CS   O   -*   (M 
CO   (M   <M   CO   O 

>o 
to 

rH 
CO 

"c3 

o  o  eo  d  o 

O    O    rH    -*    00 

O 

* 

o 
H 

(M   O   m   O   rH 
(M    rH 

rH 
»O 

N 

6 
£ 

<u 
o 

m 

(M  co  -*  >n 

J>    rH    CO    t~ 

T-H    rH        '       '   O 

-.' 
•* 

in 

<L> 

00   rH   C>   >O   «3 
!>   O    CO   O    O 

00 

gs 

35 

rrt 

to 

00   >rt   rH   (M   rH 

a 

nj 

Tt<     rH     C5     O     >O 
Tf    CO    C5    5D    D- 

a 
0 

J 

rH    O    (M    CO 

i—  1   rH 

0 
<M 

3 

rH    00   O    TT   O 

CO   t-   CO    O5    00 

CO 
rH 

E2 

Tt<    rH    40    W    (N 

O 

Tf 

rH 

d 
g 

g 

0 

pq 

IO    C5    O    (M 

O    rn   tO    O5 

T-H   rH                 O 

(M 

CO 

CO 

IH 

w 

-*  (M  O  »O   O 

C5   rH   O>    >O    00 

«o 

CO 

C/) 

.« 

to 

•*    -^    rH    rH    (M 

»ra 

rH 

OS 

3 

(M   t~   O   t- 

CO   •*   tO    •* 

OO   tD   (M   CO    O 

U) 

a 
o 

N 

1 

4 

i 

« 
4 

c 

*C 

i 

"1 
P 

a  * 

i 

j 
) 
1 

3, 

3 

; 

i! 

0 

u 

_0> 

'H,           : 

bo 

's      5 

O                    rt 

8             g 

o             2 
c              5 

SL»I 

Jr    •o*o-s 

o  „-  -    C    P 

^     QJ     «     <U    g 

l^isl 

pq2;p^(^H 

1) 
_rt 
"Si 

OJ 
|M 

C 

rH   OJ   co'   •*   »C 

W 

u 


*rt 

C  0   O  C   O 

o  o  o  o  o 

g 

c 

0 

H 

C    0    O    C    0 
C    O    C    C    0 

c 

CO 

d 
^ 

o 
o 

m 

t-   OO   00   •* 

rH    •*   rH    O 

oo  to  w  o  o 

rH    rH 

CO 

0 

^ 

tn 
(U 

, 

Ci    CO    rH    C5    O 
O   M   W   •*   O 

•<*< 

^ 

cn 

to 

rH    (0    00    TH    O 

•*  -t  -*  »n  o 

rH 

oc. 
^ 

rt 
^ 

-*    OS    r-    l> 
00    T-H    O    Tf 

CS   t-   0   00    O 
•*   Tt<   CO   CO 

CO 

S 

•* 

*c3 

CO  O    C5  (M  O 
t>  O   (M  «3  O 

Tf 

* 

o 

H 

O5  O   t-  00  O 

05   O    C5    0   O 
r^                     rH 

0 
0 

IM 

d 
^; 

'<L> 

C 

0 

pq 

w  >n  o  co 

00    rH    Tf    0 
t>   t>    W    rH    O 

« 

00 

IH 

HI 

, 

rH    CO    •<*"    O>    CO 

ci  co  o  >n  co 

OS 

1 

u 
OT 

cS 
fe 

C5    O    «O    rH    CO 
CO    CO    W    CO    O 

0 

CO 

O   00    «    t-   t- 
O    Tf    05    Tt<    tO 

OS 
OS 

ia 

N    (M    1-    >0    rH 

«n  to  o  w  t1 

0 

o 

*«« 

o  o  o  c  o 
o  o  c;  o  o 

0 

0 

o 
H 

0  O   O   O   O 
0  O   C   C   O 

0 

2 

rH 

d 

£ 

<u 
o 

m 

Tt<     O     «     CS 

CO   rH    -<J<    M< 

i>  e>  ci  ,«o  o 

rH    rH    rH 

<M 

°. 

o 

Li 

<U 

N   00    0!    CS   0 

«n  cs  t-  o  o 

r~ 

CM 

" 

V) 

CB 

to 

TJI    rf   CO    tO   O 

CO    CO   CO    OJ   O 

00 
CO 

rt 

^ 

•*   0}    O    CM 
rH    OS   t-    Tt< 

00   Tt<   O    OC    C 
»O   iO    O    O 

CM 
CM 

ta 

c 

H 
I 

< 

•4 

' 
-4 

C 

n 

j 

j 
J 

5. 
i 

5 
^ 

OJ 

o 

j;                          * 

'5.               I 

M 

c              ^^ 

'5                           4) 

S              "3 

3           s 

o              1 
bo                £ 

"3  §          "> 

S^-s-s-i 

0  _j  C    C    P 

.is  13  «  «  S 

•82««l 

pz^p^^H 

HJ 

5 
a 

<u 

IM 

rH  ci  co'  •*"  in 

M 

-c 
c 
rt 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


217 


^3 

to  "^r1  o 

«    X    0 

o 

Tf 

o 

00   TH   O 

o 

h 

M 

u 

0 

O 

CO 

o 

'  o  o 

d 
55 

PQ 

IH 

x  i>  o 

X    CO   O 

»o 

OJ 

1 

03 
PH 

CO         O 

TH 

TH1 

C 

§  ^ 

O 

OS 

,3 

•^    TH    O 

o 

O    X    <N 
CO    OS    O 

X    TH    O 

o 

CO 

o' 

TH 

b 

c 

to 

C 

o 
o 

o 

'  o  o 

d 

m 

55 

i* 

u 

^ 

1-1   O  (N 

CO    CO   OS 

a 

•2^ 

r^ 

d           OP 

TH 

CO 

1 

TH 

OS 

co  >n  o 

X    tD    TH 

X 

in 

3 

»n  TH 

t~ 

o 

t-    05   t- 

tO   T-  t   tO 

>n 

H 

TH 

<u 

O 

(M 

O 

TH 

n 

0 

'  0  0 

d 

C3 

1* 

•I 

N    M   t> 

O     (M     Tj< 

e- 

CO 

rt 

UH 

N          O 

X 

OS 

ro  t- 

Tf<     CO    - 

o 

X 

3 

Tj<     TH     O 

H9 

If 

1 

05 

M 

"3 

3 

^ 

>  I 

c 

^•^ 

- 

o3    ¥? 

qj    CJD 

- 

-*-*     _ 

4d 

u 

W3  .  ^- 

f 

* 

>"^    P 

rt 

en 

CO£H 

0 

TH  ei  co' 

W 

P 
U 


o 

PC 


'a 

>^  o  o 
to  o  o 

X 

o 

C5    C    O 

91 

H 

O    C   0 

C5 

w 

o 

a 

CO 

c 

. 

. 

o 

o  o 

d 

m 

<u 

CO   **   O 

CO   CO   O 

>o 

X 

<u 

f 

m  o  o 

OS 

CO 

-*   N  0 

to 

05 

d  to 

to  o 

t- 

5 

co  c:  O 

0 

03 

"o 

o  x  o 
t-  •*  o 

X    X    O 

(M 
CO 

OS 

H 

C5   Ci  O 

OS 

0 

(M 

CO 

C 

o 

0  0 

d 

PQ 

£ 

co  tn  os 

Tt< 

Sj 

t  t 

X    TH    X 

1^. 

«J 

03 

t-  o  x' 

0 

CO 

PH 

(M  TH   c> 

ta 

oJ 

^    CO   iH 
(M    CO   i-l 

OJ 

3 

O    CO   TH 
l>    X 

OS 

CO 

1 

O    C    0 

o  o  o 

C   O  0 

0 
0 

o 

H 

o  o  o 

o 

u 

TH 

CO 

•"(1 

iH 

TH 

c 

o 

'  0  0 

d 

m 

u 

01   CO    O 
(M  X  O 

•>* 

o 

(U 

rS 
fe 

TH    CO    O 
CO     TH    O 

»o 

05 

S£ 

IM 

o 

<U 
K-3 

x  to  o 
to  x 

CO 

/) 

£J 

U 

u 

^J 

"o 

C 

•Jj 

C3 

!> 

c 

C 

_^^ 

3 

S  So 

u 

OT.S 

•a 

C 

« 

ill 

05 

TH  c\i  co' 

w 

218 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


X 

W 


p 
U 


H 
fc 
O 

W 


la 

O  t-  tO  T-I  -rt<  00 

O  CO  O  00  00  CO 

cS 

b 

H 

tO  •*  TH  CO  Ol  CO 

53 

i 

Tf  O  t-  W  <M 
CO  O  C5  t-  <N 

>c 

(M 

d 

0 

M 

O  (M  TH  TH    <N 

00 

, 

In 

<L> 

o  ^  o  to  oo  co 

O  X  W  tO  N  tO 

to 

i/5 

£ 

TH                     <M 

t 

rt 

O  O5  T-  00  •*  CO 

»ft  TH  CO  rH  00  »O 

o 

>o 

3 

•*  ^- 

o 

13 

C<J  ^  tO  *rj*  OC  tO 

TH  to  to  tO  CO  O 

o 
»o 

o 
H 

CO  CO  (M  (M  W  (M 

to 

TH 

<u 
c 

(M  ^r  o  to  oo 

o 
o 

d 

o 

m 

C  (M  rH         T-I 

I- 

I* 

ro  M  co  co  O 

ci 

$3 

D 

* 

c3 

«n  to  x  to  o  <M 

t>  O  00  CO  tO  rH 

to 

GO 

CJ  TH       TH  TH 

*" 

3 

Tf  ~  O  T-I  tO  l~ 
Tt«  CO  O  tO  r-  (M 

CO 

9 

o 
H 

CO  (M  rH  OJ  C\J  CJ 

CO 

TH 

§ 

t~  r-  t^-  CQ  »c 

Tf  tO  CO  «5  >O 

GO 

d 

o 

m 

O  TH      T-I      TH 

ta 

b 

CO  tO  O  t~  TH  ft 
ta  TH  O  (M  TH  O 

rH 

M 

1 

TH 

C 

rH  tO  CO  t-  CO  O 
Ci  t~  CO  C^  O  !> 

O 
(M 

J 

0}            TH 

*" 

• 

j 

i 

P 

75 

—  * 

3 

J 

< 

i 

/i 

? 

_> 
^ 

U 
(J 
c 

C  c  C  =  C 

o  o  o  o  o 

^  _^  ^  ^  _o 

^  ex  ex  ex  ex  ex 

•w  O  O  O  O  O 

5 

0 

•-IH 

U 

rH  0}  CO  TJ.  10  tO 

£ 

U 


> 


*rt 

c  c  o  o  c-c 

o  c  c  o  c  o 

c 
c 

O 

H 

o  c  c  o  c  o 
o  c  o  c  o  c 

o 

0 

" 

<u 

c 

»O   TH   TH   Tf   OC 

«5  T-I  t-  re  CO 

t- 
to 

6 

fc 

O 

P3 

o  co  -*  T-  m  »« 

LO    tO    «ft    !M   O 

t- 

CO 

t-i 

<u 

t 

O  N  W  <M  t~  •* 

O   M   O   CO   GC   !O 

^r 

0 

35 

« 
PH 

H5   G5   tO   t-   Ci   00 
N  i—  i   rH   rH          i—  t 

oo 

O  re  t^  t^  ei  oc 

O   N   OC   Oi   t>  O 

9 
-* 

5 

«5  t-   CS   O   Tf   »ft 
l>  (M   1-1   CO  SO   1-1 

CO 

•* 

"c3 

co  ro  •*  j>  (O  •* 

O  0  t-  00  T-  O 

o 

CO 

o 
H 

C5  t-  t-  00   O  CO 

C5    C5    C5    C5    C5    O 

00 
C5 

«j 
o 

cj  oo  i-i  »n  t- 

C5  CO  O  O  00 

t- 

C5 

d 
£ 

o 

« 

o  o  co  »c  to  o 
o  >n  co  <M  o 

(M 

•>f 

u 
ly 

! 

C!  (M  00  •*  O 
00   -*   IN   t>  T-I 

a 
to 

OT 

r* 

fXl 

O     t-     T-I     TH     N     © 

t- 

rt 

Tf  IN   00   OJ  TH  t- 

TH  T-I  o  >n  o  t> 

-* 

to 

a 

OC    OS    CO    TH    T-*    1O 
00  OJ   CO   «1   t> 

t^ 
* 

*« 

o  o  o  c  o  o 

c  c  c  c  c  o 

8 

o 
H 

o  c  o  o  c  o 
c  c  c  c  c  o 

o 
c 

ti 

O    TH    O    00    CO 
>O  (M  «  C  (M 

to 
o 

6 
£ 

o 

m 

O   TH   CO   <M  r»i  CO 

no  co  m  <M  «o 

o 
•^ 

L 

<u 

, 

TH  o  o  ••*•  o  oo 

Tj<  t-  to   CO   C   00 

W5 
(M 

35 

E* 

»«  to  >«  c  w 

00 

c 

O  O   CO  tO   CO   rt< 

U)    00    TH    TH    CO    00 

C5 

te 

5 

Tt"   rH    T-I    t-    O    O 

00   CO   CO   CO  t-   CO 

« 

- 
. 

; 

•4 

C 

/> 

.j 

j 
* 
i 

n 

d 

d 
i 

<u 

s 

o 

c 

^i 

V    <u     O    <U    <L>    ' 

5  -  c  -  c 
o  o  c  o  o 
—  _c  _:  ^;  j: 

£    O,  C.  C.  C.  O, 

i!  o  o  c  o  o 
ininminmin 

^: 
c 
rt 

"o3 

o 
|> 

o 

M-. 

U 

t- 

T^  (M  co  •*  '.t  o 

W 

ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS  219 


fc 
I 


U 


H 

H 

H 


CO 

6 

U 

OJ 

"3 

o 
H 

GO 
CO 

S 

S3 

O 
KJ 

to 

o 

to  o 

o 

tO           CM    10   ?-   C3   C5   CO    O 

N 

CM 

0 

ta 

0 

0 

w 

W 

"* 

CO   CO 

CO 

CO           CM   W   N   CM   ^   CM   CM 

o 
D 

O 

CM 

- 

•-T 

O 

o 

tO     Tt< 

- 

"^           CO   CO    C5   tO   (M   GC    GO 

CO 

rt 
fe 

(M 

CO 

>o 

5 

•x 

00   l> 

C5O5           C5O5GOtO'OGCI> 

o 

".O 

r-l    !H    ^H    iH 

c 

CO 
CO 

CO 

^* 

O) 

•a 

at 

•o 

%% 

i 

**            (MCOOGOGOTft-- 

a 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

C4 

n 

01 

CM 
O 

<U 

c/5 

-l-> 

o 
H 

£to£ocMSM£cMCMOt?Co2S£3S 

to 

^COCO^^COCOCOCOCOCOWCMCMrHCMCMCM 

0 

§ 
M 

8588SSI385SI3583I3585 

"O 

1 

g  §  S  £  £     SSSSSSg^SwSS 

CO 
CM 

CM 

0 

a 

Mg»»oo^5hoo§§°«!3«55 

s 

00 

CO 

COCMWCMCOCOCMCMNCMT-tTHrti-lTHi-I^HT 

rH 
JD 

U 

<L> 

"o 
H 

g 

0 

$ 

s 

i 

OS          <O 

i~ 

IO    CM   i—  1   CO    GO           *^»Ot> 

CO 

N  CO 

CO 

co 

m 

o 
CQ 

X) 

o 

o 

^> 

o 

7> 

o 

0 

t-           CO 
CXI           CO 

-f 

^^^^^       _^o 

00 
CO 

Cl 

'rt 

CO 

« 

GO   C5   O 

CM           GO 

*o        vo 

e- 

O^^CCO           OOGCCM 
GOtOO^O           ^fCOrP 

00 

d 

rt 

3 

CO 

t- 

C". 

s 

s 

iO          tO 

ws 

OGCtOCOOS           GOCOCO 

CO 

CO 
CM 

M 

CM   CM 

N 

e« 

_C 
j5 

W 

Entire  trimmed  loin  

-o 
B 

o 

g 
M 

(LI 

0 
_c 

^ 

O 

,= 

•r 

c 

•^ 

d 
o 

c 
£ 

-z 
c 

3 

^ 

|j 

c 

Q 

o 

j: 

^H 

c 
—  , 

^  .   : 

x-«  • 

<L>    O 

U2 

•^•rt  <u 

^ 

^•^ 

!/3 

CO    CO    CA     c/5    00    c« 

C|] 

•y) 

LT; 

ry) 

in 

C/2  COPtH 

O 

PH 

t;  -t:  ti  t;  u  "C  -s  •£  -s 

oooooo^^^i 

^CMcoTtixntot-cooOr-jwco^into^oo 

220 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


--lTf<O(MlM  COi-INCO          in   O   5O    N   M  t-   00 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


221 


TABLE  26. — AVERAGE   PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,   AND   BONE   IN  THE 
TRIMMED    RETAIL   CUTS    OF    THE   THREE    LOINS 


Retail  loin  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1    Sirloin    steak    (butt-end)  

78  90 

17  77 

2  93 

99  60 

2.  Sirloin  steak    (wedge-bone)  

75  18 

18  63 

5  63 

99  44 

3    Sirloin    steak    (round-bone)  

70  61 

24  09 

4  95 

99  65 

4.  Sirloin    steak    (round-bone)  

67  46 

25  40 

6  88 

99  74 

5.  Sirloin    steak    (double-bone)  

69.77 

20.23 

9.53 

99.53 

G.  Sirloin   steak    (double-bone)1  

78.98 

8.85 

11.19 

99.02 

7.  Sirloin    steak    (hip-bone)"'  

61.88 

20.63 

15.87 

98.38 

8.  Porterhouse   steak    

64.76 

21.76 

12.64 

99.16 

9.  Porterhouse   steak    

64.05 

29.44 

5.58 

99.07 

10.  Porterhouse    steak    

62.  17 

30.42 

6.78 

99.37 

]  i.  Porterhouse    steak    

63.83 

28.25 

6.61 

98.69 

12    Porterhouse    steak          

61.90 

31.12 

6.24 

99.26 

13    Porterhouse    steak           

61.96 

29.02 

8.09 

99.07 

14    Porterhouse   steak    

61.17 

28.27 

9.32 

98.76 

15    Porterhouse    steak          .  .         

60.20 

31.52 

7.50 

99.22 

16    Club    steak    

61.71 

31.15 

7.14 

100.00 

17    Club    steak    

59.66 

27.45 

12.20 

99.31 

18    Club   steak    

62.69 

26.15 

10.24 

99.08 

Entire   trimmed   loin          .       

66  89 

24  51 

7  94 

99  34 

'This  cut  was  made  from  the  loins  of  Steers  Nos.  1  and  2  only. 
2This  cut  was  made  from  the  loins  of  Steers  Nos.  2  and  3  only. 


222 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


OH 

X 

W 


I 


u 

J 


O 

m 


*c3 

o  to  co  »  —  o  moi 

O'OOt>COCO(N!> 

0            in   t-   O    O    IN    rH 

W           I>   Tf   C5   O   t-   O 

OO 

o 
H 

t-cow«>n«oo« 

iO           CO   "^   O   Tt<    CO   ^ 

0 
t~ 

c 

>o        r-  »n  o  <o  ci  co 

G3            •&   <M    rH    iH    rH   rH 

>O           O5   -*1   C5    C5   (M   IM 
(M           rH    Tt*   O    tO   t~   rH 

t> 

rH 

1         « 

0 

N           T-H           CO 

O 

rH 

U 

<y            j_i 

•*t-rHCO(MCOCOlO 
GO-*O5tDt-COO(M 

rH             rH    O    If}    O    CO    5O 

co        oo  «n  (M  05  «o  TH 

CO 

CO 

-          r2 
CO           **< 

W                                            rH    rH 

rH                    TH    rH                    rH 

« 

rH 

e 

OO5>OOO>nCOrH 

OO^CIO^JOCO 

O            1T3    -*    5O    T-H   I>   CO 
O           t-   -*    >C   rt<   CO   O 

O5 
(M 

J 

TfCOCOTt<Tj<olO^ 

Tt<           (M           >O   rH   (M 

CO 
O 

"a 

OOJN'-HIMCVJ    OO5 
(MQO»CO>C35«D    O   •* 

CO             «O    r-  1    r-    O    tO    C 

O           00  C5  N  >O    rH  l- 

•^ 
CO 

o 
H 

WCO^^^rhTtH^ 

^           CO   ^J1    GO   CO   CO   CO 

<M 
t- 

<M               « 

t-   rH   CO   IN   Tf   <M    rH.Tjt 

tO-rHCOOlr-TT-l    rHrH 

••f             t>-    Ot    rH    O5    l-i    C5 

rH            rH    ^    rH    O5    CO    O 

(M 
-* 

1  » 

CO           rH           CO 

rH 
rH 

<LI                ^_i 

CO5DCOtOOt-rH?O 
1OCOCOCOCOCO    (O   (O 

O           Tt<   O    CO    -*   t-   CO 

t>           O   CO   GO    TH   (M   N 

5O 

fi 

_W                 03 
CO               r*l 

CJ 

CO 

SS^g^SS  SS 

•M           O    O   rH    CO   N   CO 

OJ 

3 

ococo-<t|-*-*coco 

CO           (M   rH   t-   rH   (M 

rH 

m 

13 

<M  •*  o  co  ro  o  >ra  w 

rH     1O     rH    O}    W     O     l~-    <P    tM     >O     (X 

C5 

0 

H 

OrHWWWNWW 

WWWCJrHWCO^COWW 

>o 

IO 

e 

s    sssg  §§ 

ggggg^g         -g«« 

o 

(M 

1    » 

'o     • 

(M   O   rH           IM 

oo 

fc 

^S^g^S^g 

cSs?^s^gs^^s;§ 

«* 

CO 

~          r2 
CO           * 

CO 

00 

5 

OGOCOCOOW    t-   O 

53  S  S  8  8  £  §  3  B  8  § 

fc« 

CO 

3 

o 

CO 

:::::::::- 

i« 

u     

o 

<j 

(LI       •       •       •  ^-' 

•o 

M 

(A       

c    •    •    •  w 

C 

B 

43          E    C    C 

Q 

O 

slsgg-Stg 

^^^^^^g^       •jj.'l* 

V-. 
(U 

<u 

pc/3V)t/3t/)C/D      </5     t/3 

llslllll 

Q^     C^     c/5     C/5     t/3 

"C  *O  "7J  "U  "O  *C  ^    P    v    v  _>«i 

ccncc  B-  o      B  n  c 

.a 

'C 

wOOOOO    OO 

OOOOO     O    C    O    r-    r^  ^g 

<u 

T-twco^mtfit^oo 

OO^^CvlCO    Tfi»^COI^CCC5 

w 

I9i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


223 


o 
x 


a 
M 


224 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July, 


TABLE  29. — AVERAGE   PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,   VISIBLE  FAT,   AND   BONJ 
TRIMMED  RETAIL  CUTS  OF  THE  THREE  ROUNDS 


IN    THE 


Retail  round  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1    Rump    roast                 

61.78 

32  24 

5  50 

99  52 

2    Round   steak    (first   cut)  

88.31 

10  23 

94 

99  48 

3    Round    steak      

79  .  79 

11.81 

7  59 

99  19 

4    Round    steak          

86.79 

7.39 

5  27 

99  45 

5    Round    steak      

86.84 

9  06 

3  49 

99  39 

6    Round    steak      

86.58 

9.70 

2  82 

99   10 

7    Round    steak          

83.41 

13.12 

2  69 

99  22 

8    Round    steak      

80.67 

16.00 

2.74 

99  41 

9    Round  steak1   

84.67 

13.03 

2  30 

100  00 

10    Round   steak1    

82.67 

14.67 

2.66 

100  00 

1  1    Round  steak1  

76.10 

20.72 

3.18 

100  00 

12    Round    steak     

76.37 

19  .  30 

3.91 

99  58 

13    Round   steak1    

82.29 

13.02 

4.69 

100.00 

14    Round    steak    

77.75 

16.06 

5.32 

99.13 

15    Knuckle   soup   bone    

19.12 

21.13 

59.07 

99.32 

16    Pot    roast    

86.19 

12.60 

.88 

99.67 

17    Shank  soup  bone    

40.11 

11.37 

47.68 

99.16 

18    Shank  soup  bone    

66.92 

12.35 

20.19 

99.46 

19    Shank  soup  bone    (hock)  

8.14 

10.34 

79.90 

98.38 

Entire  trimmed  round   

69  23 

15  79 

14  37 

99  39 

]This  cut  was  made  from  the  round  of  Steer  No.  1  only. 


i<)i2\        ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


225 


*c3 

Sgos3£3w£ooo;g£o£ 

ee 
$ 

o 

CSCCNCOM^Tt.MTfOCCO-.   OOM 

o 

00 

CO 

OJ 

c 

SSSS8858«SI2g5l§S 

Tf 

6 
£ 

O 

PQ 

rH                                                                           iH    iH 

00 

i* 

«i^SSo?     SS^NS3S§§2 

t- 

E- 

_o 
tfi 

a 

01      ^               o          ^rt^^rt 

00 

3 

§  S  §  ^  8  S  S8  §  J2  5  £  £  s  g  s 

00 
rf 

3 

OS 

in 

3 

SSS3o«oS"§S^«®§ 

Tf 
»o 

o 
H 

OMCO^^rfMCO^WOWOWeo 

o 
I> 

<N 

r 

g  5  g  5  §  55  ^  3  8  §  s  S  5  8 

>o 

iH 

O 

fc 

1 

o 

to 

u 
u 

oSSLoo^^^^^owSSo 

>n 

>n 

c/5 

rt 

1-1                                                                                                                             T-l 

o 

SSSS§SSiS§55SSS 

(M 

oc 

3 

^OlWCOMCOCrSCOCO^COrhrfTtlM 

(M 
<p 

»—  » 
<2 

^f  o  '--:  ?!?-••*  o  >-!  O!  c^  't  cv  c;  c>  i— 

0 

H° 

0<MNN«M(NNNNTt<OTtHWT».Tp 

CO 

>n 

1—  1 

r 

S^^SS^WNWM^ScclS 

00 

»o 

o 
55 

0 

pq 

>o 

u 
u 

i^i^^c^^^wS^^s^S 

1—  i 

CO 

i/3 

R) 

'rH 

«0 

'885»§§S8§!c1"?3S!*8 

CM 

1-H 

,3 

TJ.^          rHW--l(MlMNCC"*CC(MCCCO 

7H 

<* 

o> 

o 

o 

U 

^^     

3, 

a 

o 

1 

3 

u 

jj< 

o  o  o 

TT 
I 

1_ 

P^  (^)  (^  )  (_)  ^)  (^  )  C^)  (_}  (^  )  P  i  PH  PH  C/}  O  f*^i 

U 

r4  *»  o<  -^  o  «  t>  eo  o>  o  ^'  e«  «  jij  w 

w 

226 


BULLETIN    No.    158 


[July 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


227 


TABLE  32. — AVERAGE   PERCENTAGES  OF  LEAN,  VISIBLE  FAT,   AND  BONE  IN  THE 
TRIMMED  RETAIL  CUTS  OF  THE  THREE  CHUCKS 


Retail  chuck  cuts 

Lean 

Fat 

Bone 

Total 

1    Roast    (5th    rib)  

65  77 

21  13 

12  66 

99  56 

2    Chuck   steak    

65  57 

19  22 

14  44 

99  07 

3    Chuck   steak   .  .                 

68  58 

22  61 

8  10 

99  14 

4.  Chuck   steak    

73.97 

15.87 

9.76 

99  .  60 

5.  Chuck  steak    

73.27 

17.42 

8.64 

99.33 

6.  Chuck  steak    

77.58 

14.46 

7.52 

99.56 

7.  Chuck  steak    

84.41 

6.58 

8.33 

99.32 

8.  Chuck   steak    

77.67 

13.84 

7.81 

99.32 

9.  Chuck   steak    

76.56 

14.74 

8.06 

99.36 

10.  Pot    roast    

77.45 

15.03 

6.94 

99.42 

11.  Pot    roast    

69.68 

16.60 

12.68 

98.96 

12    Pot    roast    

78.05 

9.11 

12.65 

99.81 

13    Stew    

70.63 

23.83 

5.24 

99.70 

14    Clod                                                

81.11 

13.83 

4.80 

99.74 

15    Neck        .  .                               

70.33 

15.84 

13.45 

99.67 

Entire  trimmed  chuck  

73  70 

16.17 

9.65 

99.52 

228 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


[July, 


p 
u 


w 


ft, 

1 


ooo       ooooo       o 


CMOOiHCMT-li-lOO          O 


o       ooooooo 


CM  CM   00   CJ   CO   <M 


o  ooooo 


oococcocoo 


ooooooo 


CM   W   N   CO   PS    P5  CM   CM   rH   T-I 


oooooo   ooooooo   coo 


oj  4J  ~O  -o  <"  WO 


ooooooo^oi; 


ooooooo 


o  ooooooo  .^*  .^  ^ 


TH  CM   CO   •*   O    O   b-   00    C5    O   rH   CM   CO   Tj    l/     O   t-   CO 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


229 


a 
"o 
H 


o  o       o  o  o  e  o  o  o 
o  e       o  e  o  o  o  o  c 


00   O    OOO 


SOl-OOOO 


OO 


X 


OOi-l<N>«SOOCSOSOOOOOOOOOO 
OO    OOC5O5O5C5O5C5OO    OOOOO    OO 

c 

O       pq       CO  <N  i-H  <M  CO  CQ  lH 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

00  £ 

SO  CO  >O  «  O 
t~  ^  X 

3 

ooosoo       ooc>o>  oo 

oo<oooo       oooo  oo 

b         o'o'oooo       oo'o'dooo  ooo 

ooooco       oooo  co         o 

t-   Tj<           O    O    O           IO  CO    O 

c         ......  ".    . 

O         sot-oroooo       LOOOOOOO  ocom 

IM                  N   rt<  rH          i— I  CC  t- 

lOCOOSOSOOl          OOOOO  SCO 

t-O5O!>>OOO          OOOOO  r^(M 


o  o  o  o  o  o 


o  o  o  o  o  c  o 


CO   C5   O   r- 


230 


BULLETIN   No.   158 


[July, 


X 

w 


u 

J 
< 


r-l       OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 


OOOOOOOOOOCCOCOOOOO 


ECONOMY,  COMPOSITION  AND  NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF  CUTS 


231 


C    COCOCC 


OOOCOCOO 


iftOOOCOOO 


C1C5OOCCCO 


ICTJ-OOOOOO 


(M  O  O  O  O  O  O 


ocsoopoooo 


<MI>OOOOC 


NOO  OOOOOO 


-^OOOOOOO 


OOOOOOO 


oooocoocococcco^ooo 


cooccooccccccc 


oetoooooo 


o-'tcNiooooooo 


CCOCCCCCCCO 


Ci  U2XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 


<NM-*OOOCCOCOOCO 


OOOOPOPOOOOOOPOOOOO 


c/]rfrtr3    ccrtrtcCrtrtrtcJrtrt 


SOOO    OOOOOCCOO    O   ~    C  J~  JZJZ 


232 


BULLETIN    No.   158 


a 
fc 

D 
o 

PL, 


s 
u 


u 

gj 

•< 


I 


1912]        ECONOMY,   COMPOSITION  AND   NUTRITIVE  VALUE  OF  BEEF   CUTS          233 


ooooors       o  o  o 

•<f   O   O   O   O   O          O  O  O 

b         >o  o'  o'  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o'  o  o  o'  o 
o»  o  o  o  o  o 

iH    1-1    1— !    i— '.   l-H 

Ui    O    O    CO    — -i    ^ 
C 

O 

»6  >o  t-  co  t-  oo       J>  <M 

COOOOCCi          5O  GO  W 

CO   O    >O   <O   Z>          GO  •*  V5 

rl-  OCOO"-OO5>-'5Ot-OOt-OO'^lO 

fe  co  <N  >n 

c  TH    t-    O    — ' 

OS 

5 

O  >OOOlMOOO(MOi-HCOCOOOOO5 

C5OOOOOOOOOC50S 

rt<a5i-Hi-li-HOOTH<DGOOS 

o          ° 

^  : 

i-l    i-(   N  iHiH  00~  ~C1 

lO>OO5GO»O(MGOCOCOC3i-IOOOt- 

ooooooooo   o   o   o 
ooooooooo   o   o   o 

o   ooooooooooooo'oo 
ooooooooo 

(MiHOt-lNOOiOO 

o         ° 


(/I 


COOCOOOOMOOOOOOOO-* 


* 


- 


Iff 


g 


' 


!*0fl 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

Q.630.7IL6B  C001 

BULLETIN.  URBANA 
153-1651912-13 


30112019528428 


•   •    •• 


p^ 

JP   ^^9 


•^j. 


! 


